The assessment of compensation in personal injury cases must fairly reflect the impact of permanent disability on the claimant's future earning capacity, not merely the physical impairment percentage.

ORDER :

HIMANSHU JOSHI, J.

The instant Miscellaneous Appeal assails the correctness of award dated 27.07.2001 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Tribunal, Tikamgarh, in Claim Case No.26/2001, whereby learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,49,635/- towards compensation; the same was in respect of a road accident which occurred on 30.09.1997 in which the appellant​/claimant was injured resulting into amputation of his one leg.

2. It is undisputed that on 30.09.1997, when the appellant/claimant was standing besides the shop of one Sumat Chandra Jain situated at village- Bamhouri Barana, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 who was driving the truck bearing Registration No.MP- 15-D-4475. The said offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3. On the date of accident, the appellant/claimant was a minor aged about 08 years only. He had filed a claim petition against the respondents before learned Tribunal through his natural guardian (father) for realization of compensation of Rs.9,34,300/-, but learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,49,635/- with interest @ 9% per annum.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that learned Tribunal did not consider the aspect that as a result of the accident, the appellant became permanently disabled as his right leg had to be amputated and on account of such injury, he is unable to discharge even his daily routine activities. The appellant/claimant has become more than 50% disabled; his future earning capacity has also been affected. He has further contended that learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in passing the impugned award, by not assessing the quantum of award properly. The appellant/claimant deserves to be awarded more amount under all the heads. In the light of various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount under the head of 'Future Prospects' should also be granted in favour of the appellant. With the aforesaid submissions, he has prayed for allowing the appeal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and a formal party in the instant appeal as the liability is upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that in fact, taking into consideration the relevant factors for assessing the claim at the relevant point of time, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is just and proper, has prayed for dismissal of appeal.

6. I have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

7. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation as shown in the table below -

8. The sum and substance of the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that learned Tribunal did not assess the quantum in different heads properly and no amount has been awarded under the head of "Future Prospects".

9. Before proceeding to consider the appeal on merits, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Another [(2011) 1 SCC 3