Compensation in motor accident cases must reflect actual disability and proven medical needs, without deducting statutory pension benefits as pecuniary advantages. Income assessments must include all service-related allowances, and long-term medical aid costs must be calculated based on the victim's life expectancy and the replacement cycle of devices.

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

1. These cross-appeals have been filed challenging the Award dated 11th September 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (‘MACT’) in MACT No.32/2013. MAC.APP. 981/2013 has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking reduction of the compensation, whereas MAC.APP. 335/2014 has been filed by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The accident occurred on 21st June 2012 at around 11: 25 PM, when the claimant driving his motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-1S-S-1223 near Dwarka, New Delhi suffered a collision with the Maruti Swift car bearing registration no.HR-26-AW-9912 (offending vehicle), driven by Mr. Devinder Kumar. Claim petition was filed, which resulted in award of compensation of Rs.24,02,832/- along with interest @7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

3. Ms. Sachdeva, on behalf of the insurance company, has raised the following issues:

i. While the Disability Certificate assessed disability at 60%, functional disability was taken by the MACT at 70%.

ii. Amount of Rs.80,000/- each was awarded towards cost of 2 prosthetic and Rs.50,000/- for maintenance, whereas there is no evidence led in that respect.

iii. Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards agriculture income; however, there is no evidence to support it. In fact, impugned order mentions that the claimant was Head Constable in the Delhi Police and could not have continued the agriculture work on his own.

iv. Future prospects ought not to have been granted, since in paragraph 59 of the impugned award it had been noted that the Head Constable is earning the same income as he was earning at the time of the accident.

4. Mr. Manish Maini, counsel for the claimant, to counter these submissions and canvass his plea for enhancement, places the following submissions:

i. Functional disability may be taken at 60%, considering that the Disability Certificate itself certifies permanent disability at 60% with respect to the whole body. Though there was an amputation of the right limb below the knee.

ii. As regards the prosthetic, he states that, as per the Supreme Court’s judgment of Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC (2023) 20 SCC 774, the amount of Rs.80,000/- was awarded based on the evidence of PW8, Shri Kapil Kaushik from M/s Endolite India Ltd., who stated that Rs. 80,000/- are spent on the prosthetic, and the life of prosthetic is about 7 to 8 years. He, therefore, stated that since the age of the injured was 47 years of age at the time of accident, and keeping an average of 70 years of age as per Mohd. Sabeer (supra), he would be required a prosthetic for about 23 years, and, therefore, with the life expectancy of an artificial limb, 7 to 8 years, he would require 4 prosthetics in his lifetime.

iii. He seeks enhancement of the prosthetic repair amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- for four prosthetics.

iv. He points out paragraph 63 of the impugned award, where the income has been first deducted by 50% and then the disability of 70% has been multiplied, which amounts to duplication in the reduction. He states that the impugned order is erroneous in the matter of this calculation.

v. The income of claimant should have been taken as Rs.31,629/-, including the allowances on account of transport and ration money, however, deducting the amounts on account of washing and convenience allowance, which will not form