The court affirmed that future earning loss and prospects must be included in compensation calculations, emphasizing just compensation's need for a liberal approach.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-insurance company.

2. Notice upon respondent No. 2 has been validly served and he has not appeared and on 10.02.2025 with a view to provide one more opportunity to the respondent No. 2, the matter was adjourned. Today on repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of respondent No. 2, in view of that this appeal is being heard in absence of respondent No. 2.

3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment/award dated 27.01.2023, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 17 of 2018, by the learned Principal District-Judge-I-cum-P.O. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, whereby, award has been made in favour of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 3,23,188/- as compensation for 40% permanent disability suffered by the claimant in a motor accident with intertest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

4. Mr. S.K. Laik learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned tribunal has failed to give any finding to grant compensation with regard to future prospect and loss of future earning. He submits that on these two grounds, the present appeal has been preferred.

5. He further submits that compensation case was instituted stating that on 11.12.2016 the appellant along with others was returning Dhanbad from Patna by a Scorpio bearing registration No. JH-10-AH-6153 and when they reached at Gopaldih, Dumri, P.S. Bagodar, a Tank Lorry bearing registration No. WB-29-A-8945 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed against the Scorpio, due to which the injured sustained severe injuries in his left thigh, left hand, right eye and injuries on head and face also. The offending vehicle was insured with M/s United India Insurance Company Limited. He submits that in this background, the issues have been framed and the learned tribunal framed altogether seven issues to decide the claim and pursuant to that after appreciating the evidence and facts, he has been pleased to allow the compensation to the tune of Rs Rs. 3,23,188/- as compensation for 40% permanent disability suffered by the claimant in a motor accident with intertest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on two grounds i.e. future prospect and loss of future earning, the learned court has failed to pass any award, which is against the mandate of law. He relied in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., (2022) 13 SCC 790 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paras-11 and 12 held as under:-

“11. Yet later and more recently in an accident case, which tragically left in its wake a young girl in a lifelong state of paraplegia, this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand , (2020) 4 SCC 413 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 577 , reiterated that in addition to loss of earnings, compensation for future prospects too could be factored in, and observed that : (SCC pp. 421-24, paras 14-17 & 20)

“14. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi , (1979) 4 SCC 365 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 996, this Court held : (SCC p. 366, Para 2)

‘2. … the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.’

15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250, dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Cou