The determination of just and adequate compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should consider the principles of fair and reasonable compensation, and the exclusion of double benefits to the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Learned 1st MACT, Cuttack in the impugned judgment dated 25th February, 2016 has directed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 34,41,408/- to the claimant on account of serious injuries sustained in the motor vehicular accident dated 26th January, 2012.

2. The amount of compensation has been calculated as follows:

3. The injured - claimant represented through his wife has come up in appeal praying for enhancement. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount, it is submitted on behalf of the claimant that the learned Tribunal did not grant any amount towards future prospects and further, the amount granted towards loss of amenities of life is inadequate. It is also contended that no future medical expenses and attendant cost has been granted by the learned Tribunal.

4. Conversely, it is submitted by the insurer-Respondent No. 2 that the wife of the injured-claimant has got rehabilitation appointment by the employer for permanent incapacitation of the claimant and in addition to the same, the claimant is granted pension of Rs. 4,685/- per month. It is thus submitted that since the wife has been rehabilitated in service in place of the injured- claimant, no compensation for future prospects can be granted.

5. The facts of the case regarding accident, the liability of the insurer, the age, income and rehabilitation appointment of the wife as well as pension of the injured-claimant are not disputed. The learned Tribunal taking the age of the claimant as 34 years, has applied multiplier ‘16’ for computing the loss of income. Admittedly the claimant sustained 80% permanent disability due to traumatic paraplegia resulting 100% loss of earning.

6. The issue falls for determination is whether the claimant is entitled to get addition of future prospects to the loss of his future earnings?

7. For determining the same the rehabilitation employment of the wife of the claimant and the admitted receipt of monthly pension plays important role.

8. While canvassing their respective arguments, the claimant- Appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma, 2016 (4) T.A.C. 149 (SC). Learned counsel for the insurer relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Kanta Aggarwal, 2008 (3) T.A.C. 661 (SC).

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Sharma and others (supra) has dealt with the decision in Bhakra Beas Management Board (supra). In the case of Shashi Sharma and others (supra), the insurer has preferred the challenge before the Supreme Court against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which observed that the amount receivable by the dependents of the deceased under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependent of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 cannot be deducted from the quantum of compensation fixed by the learned Tribunal. In that case, the deceased, who died in a motor accident dated 24th October, 2010, was an employee of Haryana Government and his dependents received certain amount under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependent of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. The Supreme Court by analyzing the scope and intent of the said 2006 Rules has observed as follows:

“13. In the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board (supra), ostensibly, it may appear that a departure has been made in allowing deduction of the pecuniary advantage received by the claimants from other source on account of death of her husband. However, on a closer analysis of the said decision, two aspects become