JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

1. The present order would dispose of two appeals in which challenge is to the same award dated 14.01.2008. First appeal i.e., FAO- 855-2008 has been filed by the Insurance Company in which prayer is for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Second appeal i.e., FAO-3148-2008 has been filed by the injured-claimant-Anupam Kohli seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal vide award dated 14.01.2008 had awarded total compensation of Rs. 20,38,284/- on account of 100% disability suffered by the claimant in a road side accident which took place on 08.11.2004. In the present case, the only issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the compensation awarded is to be increased or decreased as other aspects are not being disputed.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that in the present case, monthly income which had been taken into consideration by the Tribunal was Rs.6500/- per month although the same should have been Rs.7500/- per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal had not granted any benefit of future prospects and since the injured was 21 years of age at the time of the accident, thus, additional 40% of the income on account of future prospects should have been granted. It is also highlighted that the multiplier which had been applied by the Tribunal was ‘16’ whereas the multiplier of ‘18’ should have been applied. It is submitted that on account of loss of enjoyment of life and on account of 100% disability, the Tribunal had only awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each whereas on each of the said account, Rs.5,00,000/- should have been awarded. It is argued that on account of pain and suffering, the Tribunal had awarded a meager amount of Rs.25,000/- whereas the claimant should have been awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the said aspect, as it had been found that the claimant had suffered 100% disability to the whole body and for whole of his life, he would be unable to sit or stand on his own legs and thus, the same has rendered physical wreck. It is thus, submitted that the additional compensation should be awarded to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the claimant has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, has submitted that once the claimant is claiming future prospects as well as increase in multiplier and has also been paid the amount which he had spent on his medical treatment, then, no further claim on account of loss of enjoyment of life and compensation on account of 100% disability can be claimed by the claimant and the amount already awarded i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- on each of the said two accounts is absolutely adequate and granting any further amount would be against law. It is further submitted that there is no ground to increase monthly income from Rs.6500/- per month to Rs.7500/- per month and thus, the claim made for increase of monthly income is baseless. It is further submitted that even the rate of interest which is sought to be claimed by the claimant i.e., 9% per annum is highly excessive and the highest rate of interest that can be awarded on the additional amount of compensation is at best 6% per annum.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant, after taking into consideration the objections raised on behalf of the Insurance Company, has submitted the revised chart which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“FAO No 855 of 2008
Oriental Insurance v. Anupam Kohli

Date of Accident: 08.11.2004
Date