IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in calculating compensation for motor accident claims, all components of income must be included, and future prospects should be considered for both employed and self-employed individuals.

JUDGMENT :

VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bhartendu Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are owner and driver of vehicle.

3. This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 18.04.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. -13/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad in M.A.C.P. No. 380 of 2013 (Sanoj Kumar Vs. M/s Mangala Oil Carrier Pvt. Ltd. and Others) by which compensation of Rs. 6,10,068/-along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of claimant-appellant on account of injuries received by him.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that a very meager amount has been awarded by the claims tribunal. The claimant has fully proved his income by producing cogent evidence and the claims tribunal has erred in awarding compensation accepting Rs. 4,153/-as monthly income of the claimant and amount of Rs. 1,765/-received by the claimant under the head of H.R.A. was deducted by the tribunal from the income of the deceased. The claims tribunal has erred in deducting amount of H.R.A., whereas the house rent allowance includes in the income of the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava, 2008 (2) SCC 763. The relevant paragraph nos. 19 and 21 are reproduced herein-below:

“19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.

21. If the dictionary meaning of the word “income” is taken to its logical conclusion, it should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.”

5. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects, whereas, the claimant-appellant is entitled for 50% future prospects as the claimant was in permanent job and was below 40 years at the time of accident in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan and Others, 2018 (2) T.A.C. 14. The relevant paragraph nos.8, 9 and 10 are reproduced herein-below:

“8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:

(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident.

(ii) Loss of income including future income.

(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities.

(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future.

(v) Loss of expectation of life.

In Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. this Court held:

“The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the