The entitlement to compensation for personal injury, including permanent disability, loss of future income, and deductions for Mediclaim policy, should be determined based on established legal principles and precedents.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral) - Vide this common order, FAO No. 402 of 2014 (O&M) titled 'Dr. Kamlesh Bhalla v. M/s G.T. Roadways and others' and FAO No. 553 of 2014 (O&M) titled 'The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Dr. Kamlesh Bhalla and others' are being decided.

2. Since both the appeals have arisen out of one accident, therefore, common facts are being noticed.

3. Appellant received injuries in vehicular accident which took place on 13.12.2011. Appellant was serving as a doctor at the time of accident. Her monthly income was assessed to be Rs. 35,000/- per month by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

4. As per latest permanent disability certificate dated 16.12.2016 received on record in pursuance of order passed by this Court on 11.11.2016, permanent disability of the appellant was assessed to be 70%.

5. The Board has opined that the appellant has right upper limb brachial flexus injury. Her MRI shows atrophic brachial plexues roots & nerves. Right upper limb is flail & functionally useless with some finger & wrist movements.

6. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation took functional disability of the appellant to be 70% and calculated the amount under different heads viz an amount of Rs. 26,46,000/- as future loss of income. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has deducted an amount of Rs. 4,20,862/- towards Mediclaim policy from Rs. 9,07,968/-. Remaining amount of Rs. 4,87,106/- was assessed towards medical expenses. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards food, transportation and miscellaneous expenses was assessed and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was assessed towards pain and suffering. Besides the aforesaid amount, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was assessed towards loss of expectations and other amenities in life. In this way, total amount of compensation was assessed to be Rs. 32,28,106/-. The aforesaid amount was payable with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till final realization of the amount.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that deduction to the extent of Mediclaim policy is wholly illegal inasmuch as that policy was availed by the appellant after paying premium and in view of ratio laid down in Manoj Kumar Yadav v. Azad and others, 2015 (3) PLR 211 (P&H) , the said amount is not deductable.

8. The aforesaid view was taken by the High Court after following the ratio of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Helen C. Rebello and others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, 1998 AIR (SC) 3191 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Bijomon, 2011(10) ACJ 546 (Kerala) and National Insurance Company Limited v. Aman Kapur and others, 2014 ACJ 1342.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that in case of injury, head under permanent disability has to be considered on two considerations. Firstly, for disfigurement of the body, an amount of Rs. 2000/- per percentage has to be calculated and second component has to be considered towards loss of future income on account of permanent disability. The first component has not been considered and no amount was awarded on the basis of amount of Rs. 2000/- per percentage.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that the award made by the Tribunal under heads of transportation, special diet and miscellaneous expenses is also on the lower side. Pain and suffering of the appellant have been inadequately answered by awarding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- only.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently objected to the plea of enhancement and submitted that appellant was only a temporary employee who was not even confirmed in job. The appointment letter of the appellant dated 19.11.2011 was suggestive of the fact that her appointment was adhoc in nature. No material has been produced on record to show that the appellant was ever employed somewhere prior to the appointment in question.

12. Secondly, learned counsel submitted that in case of injury, there cannot be any future prospects as suggeste