The assessment of future earning capacity must consider the nature of disability relative to the claimant's profession, not merely the percentage of physical disability.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. These two appeals U/S. 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(in short “the Act”) ; one by insurance Company (in short the “insurer”) in MACA No.26 of 2023 and other by claimant in MACA No.27 of 2023 challenge the quantum of compensation as awarded by the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2022 passed in M.A.C. No. 85 of 2017 by which the learned 7^th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) awarded compensation of Rs.1,12,71,231/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty One) together with Simple Interest of 6% per annum to the claimant for the injuries and loss sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident and directed the insurance company to satisfy the award.

2. Bereft unnecessary details, the appeals arise out of an accident which took place on 24.11.2016 at about 12 Noon when one Priyadarshi Das, a “C” class contractor by profession (claimant) coming from his village Nayagarh by riding his bullet motorcycle was dashed from the front by the truck bearing Regd. No. OD-25-5655(hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) near Khelapada Lord Shiva Temple as a result, the claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture and was immediately shifted to nearby hospital and later treated at different hospitals incurring huge expenditures. Besides, the accident was registered vide Khandapada Sadar PS case No. 65 of 2016, which culminated in charge sheet. On this accident, the claimant approached the learned tribunal in an application U/S. 166 of the Act by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle which resulted in award of compensation to him by the impugned judgment, however, the quantum of such award is challenged by both the claimant and insurer in these two appeals.

3. Heard, Mr. Adam Ali Khan, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer in MACA No. 26 of 2023 & Respondent No.2 (R2) in MACA No. 27 of 2023 and Mr. Amiya Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant in MACA No. 27 of 2023 & Respondent No.1 (R1) in MACA No. 26 of 2023 and perused the record, but notice against the owner of offending vehicle stood dispended with since liability to satisfy the award has not been challenged in these appeals.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record together with short written notes of submission filed by the insurer, it appears that primarily the quantum of compensation is challenged on two counts; firstly, assessment of extent of disability of the claimant and secondly, the assessment of income of the claimant. In the appeal by the claimant, the quantum of compensation is challenged mainly on the ground of determination of his income. According to the claimant, the learned Tribunal committed error by not taking his income @ Rs.1,46,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal has admittedly assessed the annual income of the claimant at Rs.13,74,724/- by referring to his Income Tax Return (ITR) for the year 2016-17, which is arrived at annual gross income of the claimant less income tax paid. No doubt, the claimant claims his monthly income to be Rs.1,46,000/-, but he has only filed his ITRs for the year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 in addition to the oral evidence of PW2 who is stated to be a Charted Accountant and claims to be the Income Tax Retainer & Auditor of the claimant. No doubt, PW2 has exhibited the balance sheet of the claimant along with profit and loss statement under Ext.11 with objection by the insurer, however, such objection was consolidated in cross-examination of PW2 when he admitted to have not prepared Ext.11. Additionally, PW2 has p