The assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the permissibility of deductions from future loss of income depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and no general principle can be laid down for making such deductions.

1. This is a claimants appeal filed against the judgment and order dt. 22nd of March 2006, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CIMA No. 71/05.

2. The facts in brief be noticed as under:--

Appellant Mohan Lal a Naik in the Indian Army was on his way from Udhampur to Jammu on his Motorcycle along with his wife on 11th of Dec. 2000, when he was hit by a truck bearing No. JK02J 7387. In he said accident, the appellant sustained severe head injury and also fracture of both the bones of right forearms. As a result of the disability which was assessed at 100%, the appellant lost his service. Appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), claiming an amount of Rs.71 lacs as compensation. The Tribunal decided the claim petition of the appellant vide its order dt. 30th of June2004 and awarded an amount of Rs. 13, 80,400 as compensation under different heads as under:--.

1.

Loss of future income : Rs. 10,80,000/--

2.

Speacial diet : Rs. 10,000/

3.

Expenses on attendant : Rs. 2, 88,000/--

4.

Cost of wheel chair : Rs. 14, 400/--

5.

Pain and suffering : Rs. 20, 000

6.

Loss of amenities & pleasure of life : Rs.40, 000/--

Total Rs. 13.08,400/-"

3. Respondent-Insurance Company preferred an appeal bearing C1MA No.71/05 against the aforesaid award passed by the Tribunal, which came to be decided by a learned Single Judge of his Court vide judgment impugned dt. 22nd of March 2006, whereby the learned Single Judge has modified the award by reducing the future loss of income from Rs. 10,08,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.07,84,000/- by making 1/3rd deduction. However, the multiplier was enhanced from 12 to 14. The total awarded amount as per the judgment impugned is now Rs. 11,56,400. It has further been ordered that the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest on the awarded amount @9% per annum, except on the amounts mentioned in items No. 1, 2 and 3 pendente lite i.e. Loss of income, Loss of Special diet and expenses on attendant. The claimant appellant is not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to making of 1/3rd deduction from future loss of income. It is against this modification made by the learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The issue involved in this appeal is whether in the case of an injury, when a court or Tribunal makes assessment by applying multiplier, 1/3rd deduction from future loss of income is permissible?

5. The learned Single Judge while ordering 1/3rd deduction has placed reliance on 1994 ACJ 505, Surjit Singh v. Waryam Singh and another, 1995 ACJ 366, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control India Pvt. Ltd. and others and 2005 ACJ 1131, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and another.

6. In Waryam Singhs case (supra), the injured was a child of 4 years of age who had suffered permanent disability of 100%. In the said ease, no law has been laid down that from the assessed compensation, 1/3rd is to be deducted. In R.D. Hattangadis case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 9 of the judgment, observed as under:--

"Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money: whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physi