ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

1. The Appellant-Claimant Rameshbhai Bhimjibhai alias Bhimabhai has filed the present Appeal seeking an Enhancement of the Compensation for the Motor Accident which accordingly to Appellant happened on 25.2.2010 at about 8:30 a.m. when the Applicant was traveling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Registration NO.GJ-23-F-9958 (Ownership of Opponent No.4 being driven by the Opponent NO.5) and when they reached Nr. Depara Patiya, Limbdi- Ahmedabad Highway at that time one car bearing Registration No.GJ-3- CA-6446 (Ownership of Opponent No.1 and being driven by Opponent No.2) dashed with the Motorcycle and the Applicant sustained injuries and the said incident only took place because of the Opponent No.2 was driving his vehicle in excessive speed, endangering human life, in rash and negligent manner. The complaint was filed before Pansina Police Station against the Opponent No.2. At the time of accident, the Applicant was of 26 years having good health and no disability and the Applicant was earning monthly Rs.5000/- from diamond polishing work and Rs.25,000/- per year from Agriculture Work. Due to grievous injuries including fracture, the Applicant was treated in a hospital and not able to do his routine work for long period and incurred huge expenses for medicines etc., and sustained disability. Therefore, he has filed Petition for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with the interest @ 18% against the Opponents.

2. The learned Tribunal after discussing the evidence produced by both the parties has granted the total Compensation of Rs.7,18,619/- to be paid to the Claimant-Appellant with Interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of Petition till realization.

3. The learned counsel for the Appellant Ms. Amrita Ajmera has submitted before us that the Compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal calls for enhancement, because the Appellant was also engaged in the side business and was earning more than what has been held to be the annual income by the learned Tribunal and awarding loss of future income, the same has been computed only @ 25% towards future prospects of increased income, whereas as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 Vol 6 SCC 121] the same should have been @ 40% and she has also submitted that the reimbursement of Medical Expenses at Rs.26,619/- is also on very lower side as the Appellant-Claimant had to undergo three surgeries and could also get implanted the Artificial Limbs if proper compensation for the same was also granted by the learned Tribunal.

4. Per contra, leaned counsel for the Insurance Company Mr.Kirti Pathak has submitted that the adequate and fair compensation has been awarded to the Claimant-Appellant and the case does not call for any further enhancement of the Compensation.

5. For artificial limbs aspect of the matter, she submitted that there was no medical advice for the same and therefore, the same cannot be granted.

6. She has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. [(2011)1 SCC 343] in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid the following principles for computing the compensation in the case of injuries. The relevant portion of the said judgement is quoted below and for ready reference:

“10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite o