Compensation for injuries must consider assessed disability and future prospects as per established legal standards.

With COT/10/2025 Baren Routh Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited For the appellants/Insurance Company : Mrs. Sucharita Paul For the respondent nos. 1 : Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy Heard & Judgment on : 10^th July, 2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:

1. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are present.

2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 6^th Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 484/2010.

3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had been filed by the claimants for an accident which occurred on 09.03.2006 at about 02:00 p.m. near Rambag on Haldia Mecheda pitch road with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a bus bearing registration No. WB-11A/1609 collided with another bus bearing registration no. WB-29/2089 approaching from the opposite direction consequent to which the victim sustained injuries and was shifted to Basulia B.P.H.C. and thereafter transferred to Egra S.S. Hospital for treatment.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants/Insurance Company submitted that disability certificate was issued on 2^nd February, 2010 approximately after four years from the date of the occurrence of the accident. Moreover, the extent of injury to be 80% with regard to the injury sustained by the victim could not be relied upon for want of nexus between the nature of the injury sustained by the victim as described in the disability certificate as well as the impact of the accident.

5. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted to have filed a cross-objection exclusively on the ground of failure on the part of the Learned Tribunal to assess the component of future prospect.

6. Since the occurrence of the accident, insurance policy, the driving licence, route permit etc. and other ancillary issues are not disputed by the Learned advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of determine the above-mentioned issues.

7. Considered the rival contention of the respective parties.

8. The document marked as Exhibit – 3 being the charge-sheet described the nature of accident with the involvement of the vehicles as aforesaid which collided with each other resulting in the accident which was further endorsed by the seizure of both the vehicles under the seizure list as mentioned in the charge- sheet marked Exhibit-3. The document marked as Exhibit- Y had been issued by the office of the Medical Superintendent-cum-Vice Principal, Midnapur Medical College & Hospital. The Tribunal has considered the disability certificate so issued by the Government Hospital and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the observation of the Medical Board constituted by a Government Hospital to reduce the extent of disability. The impugned Judgment and order was pronounced on 12^th August, 2024 and accordingly the Learned Tribunal should have considered the aspect of future prospect. The compensation towards pain and suffering is increased to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-.

9. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr1 and Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.2 the impugned award of Rs. 5,00,000/- is modified as follows:

10. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submits to have