The assessment of disability, computation of future loss of income, and acceptance of claimant's income were crucial in determining the compensation, and the Tribunal's decision was based on the relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited, through the medium of this Miscellaneous Appeal has challenged the Award/Judgment dated February 26, 2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rajouri, in File No. 169/Claim titled “Inderjeet vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors”, whereby a total compensation has been awarded to the claimant-respondent Inderjeet in the amount of Rs.59,78,422/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum except on future income from the date of institution of the petition till realization.

2. The impugned award has been assailed on the grounds that the claimant was claimed to have been working as Motorman/supervisor and had sustained grievous injuries resulting to his permanent disablement on 26.02.2017 when he was hit by a rashly and negligently driven Vehicle No. JK11-5057 (Bus) at Hamilton Bridge within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajouri; that as per the certificate issued by the Medical Board, the claimant had suffered 90% permanent disability being a case of Spastic Paraplegia; that the Tribunal has not appreciated the law as well as the facts on record in proper prospective and has drawn the conclusions erroneously and the award being perverse, deserves to be set aside; that the claimant-respondent was shown by the District Medical Board Rajouri to have suffered 90% permanent disability being a case of Spastic Paraplegia and the Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. Shalinder Sharma had stated that the permanent disability of Spastic Paraplegia can also be possible by way of fall or being crushed under heavy weight.

3. It has been pleaded that the Spastic Paraplegia is a group of clinically and genetically diversed inherited neurodegenerative disorders that cause lower limb spasticity and weakness; that its syndromes have traditionally been classified as either uncomplicated or complicated; that on a clinical examination of the medical disability certificate, it is clear that the claimant was already suffering from Spastic Paraplegia and was not a case of Traumatic Paraplegia, as such, the Tribunal had fallen into error by computing the compensation for ‘loss of future earnings’ on the basis of the extent of disability, even if it is presumed that the compensation under this head was payable, therefore, the compensation granted under the ‘loss of future income’ is bad and cannot sustain in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside; that the Tribunal in absence of any definite proof with regard to the income of the claimant had accepted Rs. 12,000/- per month as basic income of the claimant and with addition of 40% of un-established income, the loss of earning capacity has been raised to Rs.16,800/- monthly and Rs.2,01,600/- annually, though the claimant had not discharged the burden to prove his non-fixed income, which is required to be proved by adducing convincing evidence about the definite income; that the compensation awarded to the claimant by no stretch of imagination can be said to be just and is liable to be rejected; that the claimant has also been awarded compensation exorbitantly on other heads like expenses to be incurred in future on fowler and alphabet, wheel chair and on attendance and it was prayed for setting aside the award.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the disability is to be assessed in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Raj Kumar’s case which provides that ‘a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his/her earning capacity.’

5. He has further argued that the Spastic Paraplegia as certified by the District Medical Board is a kind of inherited/hereditary disability and in no way can be related to the vehicular accident involving offending vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company; that the ‘future loss of income’ has also been wrongly computed by the Tribunal unmindful of the fact that the cl