Compensation calculations for permanent disability must accurately reflect functional loss and future earning capacity, avoiding mechanical application of disability percentages and ensuring just compensation based on age-related multipliers.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. FAFO No. 697 of 2015 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurer of the offending Truck No.MH-04- DK-4585 against the impugned judgment and award dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, court no.1, Allahabad, in MACP No. 521 of 2011, Sangam Lal Vs. Jitendra Pal Singh & another, whereby, for the injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 29.03.2009, the claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.5,03,310/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Truck No.MH-04-DK-4585.

2. FAFO No.892 of 2015 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, court no.1, Allahabad, in MACP No. 521 of 2011, Sangam Lal Vs. Jitendra Pal Singh & another, whereby, for the injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 29.03.2009, the claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.5,03,310/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Truck No.MH-04-DK-4585.

3. FAFO No.892 of 2015 is admitted.

4. Since, both the appeals arise from the same judgment and award as such, they are being heard and decided by the common judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company in FAFO No.697 of 2015 submitted that the claimant allegedly suffered only 60% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident but it was considered to be 80% by the tribunal only on the basis of certificate issued by the Physiotherapist, which was not at all admissible in evidence. It is further submitted that the claimant was a minor who was not earning, but still the tribunal has assessed compensation by taking his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- which is erroneous. With these submission, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation paid to the claimant be reduced.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the right leg of the claimant was amputated from the knee and his two little toes of left foot were also amputated due to which he suffered 100% functional disability but the tribunal has only assessed the disability of the claimant at only 80% which requires enhancement. She further submitted that due to the amputation, the claimant was unable to do any manual labour, as such, it was a fit case where the tribunal should have awarded compensation by taking functional disability of the claimant at 100%. She further submitted that the claimant was also entitled to compensation for future prospects at the rate of 50% in accordance with Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998, but the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards it. It was further submitted that since the deceased was about 16 years old, a multiplier of 18 was to be applied for assessing compensation, but the tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16, which requires enhancement. It was further submitted that the tribunal has awarded inadequate amount of compensation towards non pecuniary heads which require substantial enhancement keeping in view of the various precedents of the Apex Court. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal preferred by t