The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to assess the future loss of earnings due to permanent disability and quantify the loss of earning capacity in terms of money to arrive at the rate of future loss of earning by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral) - Rishav Saini has filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. Briefly noticed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs on account of injuries suffered by the claimant/appellant in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 10.06.2013. It was asserted that the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle and proceeding towards Sector 23, Chandigarh when a car bearing registration No.CH-01-AM-0802 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle. As a result, the claimant as also the person driving the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. Claimant was taken to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. His right leg below the knee was amputated. Further injuries were suffered on the right arm and other parts of the body. Claimant stated himself to be 19 years of age at the time of accident and having qualified the 10+2 examination as also IELTS Examination and having received a letter from Cardiff Metropolitan University, United Kingdom to pursue higher studies.

3. The claim petition having been contested, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

"1. Whether claimant suffered injuries in an accident which took place on the dividing road of Sector 9-B and 9-C, Chandigarh on 10.06.2013 at about 11.30 pm on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.CH-01-AM-0802 by its driver? OPP

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation on account of injuries caused to him in an accident as alleged, if so to what extent and by whom? OPP

3. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid & effective driving license on the date of accident and the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR 3

4. Relief."

4. Insofar as issue No.1 is concerned, findings were returned in favour of the claimant and it was held that he had suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 10.06.2013 involving the offending/insured car and on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1.

5. The Tribunal on issue No.2, pertaining to quantum of compensation, has held the claimant entitled to a compensation amount of Rs. 22,72,800/- and calculated as follows:

6. The liability to pay the compensation amount has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. It is urged that the compensation awarded under the various heads would require suitable enhancement. Counsel would emphasise as regards the notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 8000/- per month to be on the lower side and further argues that even the sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs under the heads of 'future medical expenses including expenses of artificial limb' is grossly inadequate.

8. Counsel for the contesting Insurance Company on the contrary has supported the award passed by the Tribunal.

9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case that had been requisitioned.

10. At the very outset, it may be observed that findings have been recorded by the Tribunal with regard to injuries having been suffered by the claimant/appellant on accou