Court confirmed that compensation in motor accident cases should consider actual earnings and future income based on permanent disabilities, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion in the interpretation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM No. 14949-CII of 2018

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 1 day in filing the present appeal is condoned.

Main Case

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 14.11.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 13,81,829/- as compensation was awarded to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum.

Brief Facts

[2]. Appellant being injured, filed claim petition before the Ld. Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) along with interest on account of injuries received by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 22.03.2015 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver.

[3]. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal vide award dated 14.11.2017, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver and awarded compensation in the following manner:-

[4]. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid award dated 14.11.2017, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver been recorded in favour of the appellant/claimant by the ld. Tribunal being not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not repeated here.

Arguments

[5]. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has submitted that the appellant/claimant being a professional wrestler apart from doing dairy farming, was earning Rs. 1,20,000/- per month; had taken a vehicle on loan and was paying Rs. 10,170/- as monthly installment, therefore, the ld. Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the appellant as only Rs.7,200/- per month. He also argued that ld. Tribunal failed to add 40% as future prospects to his income in view of the settled law. He concluded his argument by submitting that not only compensation granted for transportation, attendant charges and nutritious diet was on lower side and liable to be enhanced, but compensation awarded under non-pecuniary headings was also on the lower side.

[6]. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company vehemently argued that the appellant has been adequately compensated, thus, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Discussion

[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant.

On the aspect of enhancement of compensation

Assessment under “loss of income” and “future income”

[8]. To prove his case, appellant/claimant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A, copies of medical bills as Ex.P1 to Ex.P140, charge sheet as Ex.P141, challan as Ex.P142, copy of FIR as Ex.P143, OPD cards as Ex.P144 to Ex.P165, General Master Sheet as Ex.P166, sale deed as Ex.P167, pass book of Andhra Bank as Ex.P168, photographs as Ex.P169 to Ex.P174, Disability Certificate as Ex.PW6/A and balance sheet as Ex.PW2/A.

[8.1]. In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered serious injuries i.e. Femur fracture on right side of arm (upper limb), facial injury (bone fracture near right eye) and s