ORDER

06.06.2024

1. Impugned in the instant appeal filed in terms of the provisions of Section

173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟, for short), is the award dated 14.08.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba (Principal District Judge) (herein after referred to as the MACT, for short) in claim petition bearing file No. 92/MACT instituted on 20.05.2016 titled, Sukhdev Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors., whereby the learned MACT has awarded a total compensation amount of Rs. 19,20,000/- under different pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads in favour of the claim petitioner/respondent No.1 herein on account of injury leading to permanent disablement sustained by him, due to rash and negligent driving of Vehicle No. JK21A-5793 by the respondent-driver.

2. The impugned award has been assailed mainly on the ground that the same is bad under law for having been passed in violation of the settled principles of law as contained in the Act and interpreted by the authoritative judgments passed from time to time by the Hon‟ble Apex AIR 2009 SC 3104 vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi been pleaded in the memo of the appeal that the learned MACT has not computed the loss of future income on the basis of the percentage of disability which was certified by the Medical Board as 50% and proved at the proceedings of the inquiry before the learned MACT through the statement of Doctor-Som Chadgal as Orthopedic Surgeon, the then posted at Govt. Hospital Samba, who was a member of the Medical Board and had examined the claim petitioner/respondent No.1 a number of times. It has also been mentioned in the memo of appeal that the learned MACT has awarded compensation under some heads which are not recognized under law.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant-Company, while reiterating his stand taken by him in his memo of appeal submitted that the impugned award being bad under law is required to be set aside. He contended that the compensation has been worked out by the learned MACT in contravention of the provisions of law and the settled principles as laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in various authoritative pronouncements. He further submitted that the percentage of the disability of the claim petitioner-respondentNo.1 as certified by the Board of Doctors is 50%, but, the learned MACT has taken the effect of the same as 100% for the purpose of computation of the loss of income.

5. It is also submitted that the learned MACT has awarded compensation on account of disfigurement of legs and head/forehead as Rs. 50,000/- which is not recognized under law and that expenses on account of presumptive expenditure on treatment has been awarded as Rs. 1.00 lac which is also not recognized under law. He submitted that as per the statement of the Doctor, the impact of the disability for the purpose of computation of the loss of future income should have been taken as 25%, but, the same has been taken as 100%. Learned counsel also contended that since there was no endorsement on the driving license of the driver to the effect of authorization to drive the offending vehicle, as such, the learned MACT

ought to have been given a right of recovery to the appellant-Company in respect of the award from the owner-driver of the offending vehicle.

Per contra submitted that the respondent/claimant being a Senior Advocate of the age of 80 years at the time of the accident has suffered a huge loss in terms of his income. He submitted that on account of the disability, he is not in a position to attend to his normal work as a professional Advocate, which requires him a hectic job of attending the different courts, standing for hours and going up and down the stairs. He submitted that the learned MACT has taken his income on minimum side as Rs. 20,000/-. He further submitted that compensation awarded by the