The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles set forth in National Insurance Co. Ltd v Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to determine the appropriate compensation payable to the claimant for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/Insurance Company as well as the claimant/respondent No. 1 (appellant in Cross Appeal No. 7/2016) have assailed the award dated 24.02.2016, by virtue of which the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tribunal’) has awarded a sum of Rs. 21,94,769/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, except under the head “loss of future income” in favour of respondent No. 1/claimant on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident on 08.02.2011.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company has impugned the award on the ground that enhancement of income by 50% is bad in law and the compensation on account of plastic surgery, three tyres scooter, expenditure of attendants could not have been awarded by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award. The respondent No. 1-appellant in Cross-appeal has impugned the award on the ground that learned Tribunal has not rightly assessed the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs. 10,000/- per month, which in fact was more than Rs. 10,000/- per month and further that the attendant expenses were also required to be paid for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs, as the respondent No.1/claimant remained under treatment for two years and five months. The respondent No. 1 has also prayed for enhancement of compensation on account of “loss of pain and sufferings” and “loss of amenities of life”.

3. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has enhanced the income of the respondent no. 1 by 50%, which is not permissible under law and further without there being any claim for plastic surgery & three tyres scooter, a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac for plastic surgery and a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for three tyres scooter has been awarded to the respondent No. 1, which is not permissible under law. Mr. Baldev Singh further argued that compensation awarded in favour of the respondent No. 1 is on the higher side and the same is required to be slashed down.

4. On the other side, Mr. P. S. Parmar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that because of the accident, the whole life of the respondent No. 1 has been ruined and after passing of the award, the below knee amputation was done on the left lower limb and the respondent No.1 has placed on record bills amounting to Rs. 35,003/- through the medium of CM No. 1849/2020. He drew attention of this Court towards the bills placed on record after filing of the appeal before this Court.

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

6. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident on 08.02.2011. The appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were put to notice. The appellant and respondent No. 3 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objections. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether an accident occurred on 08.02.2011 at Mishriwala by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK02AG/9390 being driven by its driver respondent No. 1, in which petitioner received grievous injuries? OPP

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

3. Whether driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and whether there was violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance? If so, to what effect OPR-3

4. Relief?

7. The respondent No.1 besides examining himself also examined witnesses, namely, Ram Saroop, Madan Lal, Pritam Kumar, Radhay Sham and Dr. Rakesh Sharma, whereas the appellant/Insurance Company examined one witness, Ramesh Singh, Junior Assistant of ARTO, P