In cases of severe injury resulting in limb amputation, courts must assess disability based on functional impairment regarding the claimant's professional capacity, rather than strictly physical loss. Loss of future earnings should reflect the inability to perform prior professional responsibilities, ensuring just compensation for total functional loss.

JUDGMENT :

[1.] The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1988”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 21.01.2014 (hereinafter to be referred as “the impugned judgment and award”) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Sabarkantha at Modasa in New M.A.C.P. No. 1168 of 2013 (Old M.A.C.P. No.651 of 2008).

[1.1] By the said impugned judgment and award, though the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding him entitled to recover Rs. 5,88,400/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual realization with proportionate costs, from the original opponents nos.1,2 and 3, who are held liable to pay 70% and opponent nos.4 and 5, who are held liable to pay 30%, the amount of compensation, jointly and severally; however, has not entertained the entire claim of compensation for sum of Rs.8 Lakhs. Hence, the present appeal praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.2 Lakhs with interest and proportionate costs.

[2.] Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court, vide order dated 15.06.2015, had admitted the appeal. The record and proceedings have been called for. The notice of admission of appeal is reported to have been duly served upon respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of another vehicle truck involved in the accident. The notice of admission of appeal is reported to have been duly served upon the respondent no.3-Insurance Company of the truck, who is represented by learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah. Learned advocate Mr. Maulin G. Pandya has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.4 who is the owner of the Jeep involved in the accident, whereas respondent no.5-Insurance Company of the Jeep, is represented by learned advocate Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, who is assisted by learned advocate Ms. Richa Shah.

[3.] With the able assistance of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the appeal is finally heard and decided by this judgment.

[4.] Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellant-original claimant, at the outset, has submitted that the present appeal is confined mainly on the quantum of compensation being determined on the lower side. It is submitted that though the issue of negligence has not been disputed in the present appeal; however, even accepting the contributory negligence of the claimant to the extent of 30% as determined by the Tribunal, he is entitled to recover the amount of compensation to the aforesaid extent from the owner and the Insurance Company of the Jeep, who are joined as respondent nos.4 and 5 respectively in the present appeal.

[4.1] As regards the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned advocate has invited my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal and, has submitted that, right from the inception, the applicant had pleaded before the Tribunal as well as in the deposition that at the time of the accident, the applicant was aged 29 years and, was earning his livelihood by driving the vehicle by drawing income of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is submitted that due to the accident, the applicant had suffered injury on the right hand, which had led to amputation of his right hand from the shoulder. Though, the disability certificate has been produced on record at Exh.51, and the doctor has opined it as a case of 100% disability insofar as the right limb is concerned. However, on the other side, it has been assessed as 46% disability. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence on record, has taken a view that, at the most, with such disability, the applicant may not be able to earn properly, and therefore, has assessed his functional disability as 70% of the body as a whole.

[4.2]