The main legal point established in the judgment is that compensation should be enhanced based on the potential to earn, future loss of income, and the severity of injuries, supported by authoritative pronouncements and recent judgments.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Tahir Husain, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sudip Ojha, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri A. K. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the award and decree dated 07.02.20007 passed by M.A.C.T/Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No. 135 of 2005 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6%.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 14.05.205 at about 2:00 p.m Rizwan Hussain Farooqui was coming from Bholepur to Fatehgarh on his own motor-cycle bearing registration no. U.P. 76D/2833 and was accompanied by his friend Amir Ali @ Montu. He was driving his motor-cycle cautiously at a constant speed. When he reached Fatehgarh crossing a tempo driven by driver Neelu @ Diwakar rashly and negligently bearing registration no. U.P. 76E/9110 dashed the moto-cycle of Rizwan from behind. As a result of which Rizwan Hussain Farooqui and his friend Amir Ali @ Montu sustained injuries. Rizwan Hussain Faooqui received grievous injuries on his nose, ear, jawline and on face. He was rushed to nearby Das Nursing Home. He received grievous injury on his head and received fractures in various parts of his body, therefore for treatment and C.T. Scan he was admitted to Regency Hospital, Kanpur. In Regency Hospital he was treated and he underwent many surgeries. It is averred that treatment continued and the appellant had to spent about Rs. 5,00,000/-on his treatment.

5. The injured was 21 years of age and was studying at Rao I.A.S, Delhi at the time of accident. Due to his accident he could not complete his course at Rao I.A.S, Delhi. Injured was giving tuition and was earning Rs. 5,000/-p.m. The tribunal has considered his income to be Nil, granted Rs. 2,00,000/-towards loss of medical expenses, granted Rs. 50,000/-towards his future medicine and Rs. 5,000/-towards pain, shock and sufferings and ultimately assessed the total compensation to be Rs. 2,55,000/-.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no amount under the head loss of income has been granted by the Tribunal which is unjust and should be at least Rs.6,000/-per month. It is submitted that no amount is granted under the head of monthly loss to injured which is also unjust and should be at least 40% Rs. 6,000/-per month with future loss of income. It is submitted that no amount under the head of future loss of income has been granted. It is also submitted that the amount under the non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded are also on the lower side and requires to be enhanced in view of the following authoritative pronouncements:

(i) Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330;

(ii) Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735;

(iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178; and

(iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011.

(v) Hari Babu Vs. Amrit Lal and others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (All.).

(vi) Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65725

7. As against this, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court. The learned counsel has submitted that the claimant was not granted any amount as the documentary evidence which were produced did not show that there was any disability which the appellant-claimant. The claimants claim for Rs. 5 lacs as expenses is not supported