For 100% permanent disability in motor accidents, functional disability matches medical assessment; notional income +40% future prospects with age-based multiplier; liberal non-pecuniary compensation for pain, suffering, amenities in vegetative cases.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Both these appeals have been heard and are being decided together as these arise from the same award.

2. FAO No.69 of 2019 has been preferred by the insurer, whereas FAO No.01 of 2019 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of award.

3. The claimant has suffered 100% disability as a result of injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident. The claimant was an occupant of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01M-1920, which had met with an accident on 10.05.2015 at Village Sidhi Nalla, near Kandidhar, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P.

4. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “the Act”) before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi (for short, “the tribunal”). It was submitted that on fateful day, the claimant was one of the occupants of the offending vehicle which had been hired by a marriage party. As alleged, due to high speed, the driver of the vehicle had lost control and the vehicle had rolled down the hill about 150 meters.

5. As per the claimant, besides a MNREGA worker he was engage in agricultural pursuits. The claimant had claimed his income at Rs.20,000/- per month from all sources.

6. The owner of the vehicle, Smt. Sunehari Devi was impleaded as respondent No.1 in the claim petition (hereinafter referred to as “the owner”). In her reply, the cause of accident had been attributed mechanical defect in the vehicle.

7. The insurer of the vehicle was impleaded as respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “the insurer’). In the reply filed by the insurer, it was stated that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

8. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the petitioner had sustained injury on 10.5.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 01M-1920, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? ORR-1& 2.

4. Whether the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01M-1920 holding the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so its effect? OPR-2

5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven at the relevant time in violation of the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, if so Its effect? OPR-2

6. Relief.”

9. Issue No.1 was answered in affirmative and the claimant was held entitled to amount of Rs.14,92,400/- as compensation under the following heads:

10. In addition, the claimant has also been held entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

11 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

12. The parties are having contest only on the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. Learned counsel for the insurer would contend that the notional income of the claimant for the purposes of assessing loss of earning has wrongly been taken at Rs.10,000/- per month. He submitted that though, the monthly income of the claimant was assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month notionally, but by granting increase of 50% on account of loss of future prospe