The court emphasizes the accurate assessment of loss of earning capacity in personal injury claims, including future income projections and compensation for pain and suffering.

1. This appeal and cross - objection have been filed by the insurance company and original claimant respectively to challenge an award dated 12.4.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (MAC) No. 190 of 2016.

2. Brief facts are as under:
The claimant Debajyoti Som was travelling on his bicycle on 15.2.2016 in the morning hours in Agartala town when a vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company coming from the opposite side collided with him causing serious injuries which led to amputation of the right leg of the claimant below the hip joint. According to the claimant, he was employed as an attendant in a doctor's clinic where he would work in the evening hours earning Rs. 9,000 per month. For the rest of the time of the day he would help a cable operator in his business for which he was paid Rs. 6,000 per month. The claimant was aged 42 years at the time of accident as per school certificate. The medical certificate showed that the injury had left permanent disability of 90 per cent.

3. The Claims Tribunal in the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle involved. The Tribunal accepted that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000 per month from his employment as an attendant at a doctor's clinic. However, his further source of income was not believed. The Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity at 75 per cent, granted 50 per cent rise for the future income, applied multiplier of 14 considering the age of the claimant to come to the loss of earnings at Rs. 17,01,000. The Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 2,45,648 towards medical expenses, Rs. 33,780 for skin grafting and Rs. 9,150 for medicine purchases. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards pain, shock and suffering and mental agony. The Tribunal thus awarded total compensation of Rs. 20,89,578. This award the insurance company as well as claimant have challenged.

4. The insurance company primarily argues that the future rise in income of 50 per cent was not in tune with the decision of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC).

5. On the other hand, the claimant argues that the Tribunal committed serious errors in (i) disbelieving further income of Rs. 6,000 by helping the cable operator's business and (ii) by applying 75 per cent as a loss of earning capacity. According to the claimant, the Tribunal correctly granted 50 per cent rise for the future income.

6. We may first discuss the question of the current income of the injured at the time of accident. The claimant examined himself as PW 2. In his sworn deposition he had stated that he had two sources of income, one by attending to a doctor's clinic in the evening hours from 5.30 to 9 o'clock from where he would receive Rs. 9,000 per month by way of salary. He was also working for a cable operator during the day time and earning further Rs. 6,000 per month. The claimant had examined Dr. Biswajit Pal as PW 3 who stated that he had employed the claimant in his chamber as a personal and clinical assistant since January 2007. He would attend the clinic from 5.30 to 9 in the evening for which he was paid Rs. 9,000 per month. The doctor also produced the salary certificate. The claimant had also examined one Bishnu Das, PW 4, who deposed that he was engaged in the business of cable line and the claimant used to work for him drawing Rs. 6,000 per month by way of salary. However, the salary certificate produced by this witness did not carry any regist