Proper assessment of compensation for future medical treatment, pain and suffering, and loss of income in motor vehicle accident cases.

S.K. Gangele, J.

These two appeals have been filed against the common award passed in Claim Case No. 106/2008. M.A. No. 4792/2009 has been filed for enhancement of compensation by the claimant and M.A. No. 5205/2009 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

2. The appeals are of the year of 2009, hence, with the consent of parties the appeals are heard finally and disposed of by this common order.

3. Facts of the case are that on 06.02.2007, around 11:30 am in the morning claimant Mr. Narveer Singh Kalra alongwith another person Lallu Yadav was coming to Ghansaur from village Atariya on his motorbike. The motorbike was dashed from rear side by a truck bearing No. M.P. 20-G-8597, driven rashly and negligently by the driver. In the aforesaid accident, the claimant received serious injuries. He was admitted in various hospitals. His left leg was amputated above knee.

4. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence has held that there was 80% permanent disability to the claimant and awarded total compensation of Rs. 36,02,131/-.

5. The counsel for the appellant-claimant has contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation. No compensation is awarded for future medical treatment and pain and suffering. The income of the claimant has not been assessed properly. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jakir Hussain v. Sabir & others reported in 2015(2) ACCD 572 (SC). Contrary to this, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side.

6. The claimant in his evidence deposed that he had 150 acres of land of joint family. He was looking after the agriculture. After accident he was not able to move. The facts deposed by the appellant-claimant have been supported by other witnesses AW-1 Raj Kalra, AW-7 Raminder Singh Kalra and AW-8 Gurmeet Singh Kalra. The claimant claims that his annual income was Rs. 5 lacs per annum. It is a fact that the claimant was not employed anywhere. He was looking after agriculture. He was also not doing agriculture himself. On the basis of aforesaid evidence, the Claims Tribunal has held that monthly income of the claimant was Rs. 4,000/- per month. In my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has not assessed monthly income of the claimant properly. The claimant was looking after the agriculture business of the family. The family had 150 acres of land and after the accident he was not able to supervise the business of the family. In such circumstances, in my opinion, monthly loss of income to the claimant could be assessed Rs. 5,000/- and annual loss of income Rs. 60,000/-. After applying the multiplier of 9, looking to the age of the claimant, as applied by the Claims Tribunal total loss of income comes to Rs. 5,40,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has considered the medical bills and amount spent by the claimant on his medical treatment and the expanses incurred by the claimant on his medical treatment and rightly awarded Rs. 30,85,931/-.

7. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- against pain and suffering. In my opinion, this amount is not proper. Dr. Umesh Mahajan, witness No. 5 deposed that there was fracture in left hand of the appellant-claimant. His left leg was amputated. Left hand was also paralyzed. The claimant was not able to work. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jakir Hussain v. Sabir & others reported in 2015(2) ACCD 572 (SC) awarded an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life in similar circumstances. The Supreme Court has held as under :

"11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meager and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant h