The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of 'just compensation' for personal injuries under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, future loss of income, and the specific needs of the injured party.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Tyagi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment/ award dated 08.07.2002 and decree dated 22.07.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Agra/Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.147 of 2000 awarding a sum of Rs.3,64,160/-with interest at the rate of 9% as compensation.

3. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 8.5.2000, appellant/claimant Satpal Singh was going from Delhi to Ghaziabad by Scooter No. DL 5 S 4011 with Dharamveer Singh at about 12 O’clock in the night when the scooter reached at Mohan Nagar, Sales Tax Check Post, a truck bearing UP 20 D 4827, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver, came from behind and hit the aforesaid Scooterist. The wheel of the truck ran over the left leg (lower limb) of the appellant. The applicant was admitted to the nearest Hospital at Mohan Nagar, District Ghaziabad where he remained admitted from 9.3.2000 to 7.4.2000 and during his treatment his left leg (lower limb) was amputed from the hip.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The factum of negligence has attained finality. The issue regarding the driver of the truck having valid and effective driving licence has also been decided by the tribunal in favour of the appellant which is not challenged in this appeal. Hence only the issue of quantum of compensation is to be looked into by us.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.1800/-per month (eighteen hundred only) which is very meagre because the appellant was aged 27 years old on date of accident. The applicant was a TV Mechanic and his income was not less then Rs.7,000/-per month in the year of accident, but learned Tribunal has equated his income with labourer. It is further submitted by learned counsel that no amount for future loss of income is awarded by the tribunal. Appellant was aged 27 years and he could have progressed in life and his income would have increased year by year, but learned tribunal did not consider this fact.

6. It is next submitted by counsel for the appellant that left leg of appellant was amputed from the hip and as per medical certificate, he has sustained permanent disability to the tune of 90%, but in fact the appellant has become 100% disabled so his permanent disability should be considered at 100%. It is also submitted that tribunal has applied multiplier of 14 while it should have been 17 keeping in view age being 27 years. It is next submitted that tribunal has awarded a very meagre amount of Rs.5,000/-for pain, shock and suffering, and no amount for future medicines, special diet and attendant charges, etc., have been awarded, learned Tribunal is not considered the loss of amenities.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the income of the appellant was not be proved, he was Mechanic, but he has failed to prove his monthly income to be Rs.7,000/-per month. Hence, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed his monthly income at Rs.1800/-per month. It is next submitted by learned counsel that as per medical certificate, the permanent disability of the appellant was found to the tune of 90% and learned Tribunal has also considered 90% it cannot be 100%. Learned counsel for Insurance Company very fairly submitted that the multiplier should be in accordance with judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record that appellant suffered any future loss of income. The amount under non pecuniary heads has been fairly awarded by the tribunal. It is submitted that Tribunal has awarded compensation with 9% rate of