The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Sarla Verma case in determining compensation for motor accident claims, including the calculation of future income, assessment of functional disability, and award of interest.

1. This is an appeal by the National Insurance Company Ltd., against the award dated 30.12.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kathua (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.88/2015 titled Kulbir Singh alias Kulvir Singh v. Jasmeet Kumar and anr.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on the fateful day of 20.09.2015 at about 11.45 p.m. when the claimant was roping the loaded goods in his Truck No.JK08D-2935 parked at Sawan Chak near Talab, Kathua, motorcycle bearing Registration No.JK08E-0621, which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, while coming from the opposite side hit the claimant as a result whereof, he suffered multiple serious injuries. The injuries suffered by the claimant rendered him permanently disabled to the extent of 35%. The claimant claimed to have been working as driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimant laid a claim of Rs.35.00 lakh under various heads before the Tribunal. The claimant also claimed that due to the permanent disablement suffered by him, he was unable to drive any type of vehicle, so his income had been reduced to zero. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim lodged by the claimants by filing objections. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether an accident occurred on 20.09.2015 at Sawan Chak, Kathua near Talab, Teshil and District Kathua, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Kathua, by rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.JK08E-0621 by its driver respondent No.1 resulting in injuries to petitioner Kulbir Singh alias Kulvir Singh ? OPP

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

3. Whether the respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and whether there was any violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance? If so, to what effect? OPR-2

4. Relief. ?”

3. The parties were asked to produce their evidence. The claimant besides appearing as his own witness also examined Kuldeep Kumar, Dr. Ghanshyam Arora, Harbhajan Singh in support of his claim. On the other hand, the appellant-Insurance Company examined Madhu Sadotra and Sumit Kumar as its witnesses.

4. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence produced before it, held the claimant-Kulbir Singh entitled to the following relief:-

5. Aggrieved of the award of the Tribunal the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant too has filed Cross objections seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company assails the award impugned on the ground that the income of the claimant taken for calculation of the compensation is excessive and on higher side. He further submits that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 which, as per the Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; (2009) 6 SCC 121, is prescribed for the age group of 46-50 years whereas as per the driving license of the claimant in which his date of birth is recorded as 01.03.1961, on the date of accident he was 54 years of age, so multiplier of 11 should have been applied.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. As per the oral evidence on record, the claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month but since there was no documentary proof regarding the exact income of