The court emphasized the importance of considering loss of future income and disability assessment in awarding compensation for motor accidents.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. - CM-22433-CII-2014

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application as well as fair stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents, the same is allowed. Delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE:

3. The present appeal lays challenge to the award dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (in brevity, 'the Tribunal'), whereby compensation of Rs.1,49,600/-was awarded to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. It was also directed that 50% of the amount of compensation shall be deposited for three years in Fixed Deposit account of any nationalized bank.

4. The brief facts of this case are that on 23.04.2012, claimant/ appellant was going from Gurgaon to Delhi on his cycle; whereas his brother Surendra Singh was going with him on his own cycle. At about 12.00 noon when they reached near Shyam Chowk, Service Road, N.H.No.8, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon, a bus bearing registration No.DL-1PC-7999 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from back side and hit the claimant/ appellant. As a result thereof, he suffered multiple injuries on his right arm, forearm and elbow. Respondent No.2 happens to be the owner of the offending vehicle; whereas respondent No.3 its insurer.

5. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent and rash driving of respondent No.1. Learned Tribunal further held that though the claimant/ appellant made an averment that he was working as producer and supplier of noodles and was earning Rs.12000/- per month, but neither he could lead any documentary evidence to prove his avocation and income; nor he could examine any customer or neighbour in support of his claim, therefore, no compensation under the head of loss of future income was awarded. Thus, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in the following manner:-

6. With regard to the liabilities, learned Tribunal held that respondent No.1 (Driver of the offending vehicle), respondent No.2 (registered owner) and respondent No.3 (insurer) are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Further respondent No.3-(Insurance Company) was held liable to pay the entire compensation to the claimant.

7. Being aggrieved against the award dated 23.04.2014, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant/ appellant for enhancement of the compensation.

8. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has contended that no compensation has been awarded under the head of 'loss of future income'; though there was a specific averment from the side of claimant that he was working as a producer and supplier of noodles. He further contended that in catena of judgments it has been held that it is not possible for persons/ labourers involved in unorganized sectors, doing their own business, to prove their income by producing documents. He again contended that neither compensation has been awarded under the head of future prospects; nor the functional disability of the claimant/ appellant has been taken into consideration for this purpose. He again contended that the compensation awarded under other heads is also very meager.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in the absence of any documentary proof or any testimony regarding the income of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal