The court reassessed compensation for a road accident victim, emphasizing the need for adequate consideration of educational qualifications and permanent disability in determining damages.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.

Heard Sri. Raghav Arora, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. S.K. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2. No one is present on behalf of respondent no. 3.

2. This FAFO has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 23.9.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.3, Varanasi in MACP No. 1 of 1998 (Jai Prakash v. UPSRTC and others), by which compensation of Rs. 2,42,092.43 paisa alongwith 6% annual interest has been awarded in favour of claimant-appellant on account of injuries received by him in road accident on 6.10.1995.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that claimant-appellant was post Graduate in Indian History. The claimant-appellant had received grievous injuries in the accident and has become permanent disabled to the extent of 60%. The accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of bus owned by respondent UPSRTC. The claimant-appellant is well educated person and the Claims Tribunal has erred in accepting only Rs. 15000/- per annum as income of the claimant. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects, whereas the claimant-appellant is entitled for 40% future prospects. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future medical expenses to the claimant, whereas there is evidence that treatment of the claimant-appellant is still going on. Lastly, it is submitted that only Rs. 5000/- has been awarded for pain and sufferings, whereas the claimant had received grievous injuries and has become permanent disabled to the extent of 60%. The amount awarded towards pain and suffering is also dis-appropriate looking the injuries of the claimant-appellant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for UPSRTC submits that the claimant had failed to prove his income and as such, notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum has rightly been accepted by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 18', whereas the multiplier of 17' would be applicable in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677 (S.C.)

5. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is undisputed that the claimant was Post-Graduate in Indian History and was about 28 years'old at the time of accident. His future was very bright, but on account of disability to the extent of 60%, he is unable to earn for his livelihood. Notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum accepted by the Claims Tribunal is dis-appropriate looking the educational qualification of the claimant-appellant. The Court is of the view that Rs. 5000/- as monthly income is appropriate looking the educational qualification of the claimant. The income of the claimant is accepted as Rs. 5000/- per month. The claimant-appellant is also entitled for 40% future prospects in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish v. Mohan and others, reported in 2018(4) SCC 571. The amount of Rs. 5000/- for pain and suffering is also dis-appropriate looking the nature of injuries and the Court is of the view that it would be Rs. 20,000/-.

7. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reassessed as below:-

1) Monthly income = Rs. 5000/-

2) Annual income = Rs. 5000/- X 12 + Rs. 60,000/-

3) Future prospects (40%) = Rs. 24,000/-

4) Total annual income = Rs. 60,000/- + Rs. 24,000/- =Rs. 84,000/-

5) Loss of earning(60%)= Rs. 50,400/-

6) Multiplier applicable (17) =Rs. 50,400/- x 17 = Rs. 8,56,800/-

7) Pain and suffering: Rs. 20,000/-

8) Medical Expenses = Rs. 60,100/-

Total = Rs. 8,56,800/- + Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 60,100/- = Rs. 9,36,900/-

8. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by claimant is hereby allowed and award of t