Compensation awarded for personal injury must consider future prospects, medical expenses, and the impact on quality of life, without deducting amounts received from insurance policies.

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J.] The Insurance company filed this appeal challenging the quantum of the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2021, dated 18.12.2022, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge/ Special Sub Judge, Trichirappalli.

2.Facts of the case:

The first respondent is injured claimant. On 01.11.2022 at 05.40 a.m., when he was attending nature's call, near toll plaza Boodhakudi in Trichy to Madurai Main Road, the appellant insured lorry bearing registration No.TN-45-BH-6928 belonging to the second respondent was driven by the second respondent's driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the injured claimant and ran over his both legs. In result, the first respondent sustained multiple grievous injuries in his both legs and hence, in both legs above the knee have been amputated. He was undergoing treatment in GVN hospital Trichy as inpatient from 01.11.2022 to 30.12.2022. He is now undergoing treatment as outpatient. He has incurred huge medical expenditure of Rs.20,00,000/-. He was working as a Assistant Manager in the Dindigul Thalappakatti Restarant Private Limited Brach at Chennai. Due to the disability in both legs, he could not walk, stand, run, squat, sit cross legged, carry any weight or do his routine work as he was doing before the accident. Due to the said accident, he is unable to work without anyone's help. Due to the accident, he is unable to have marital life and nobody is coming forward to marry him and he is living in vegetative stage. Hence, he filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/-.

2.1.The appellant insurance company filed a counter denying the manner of the accident stated in the petition and they disputed their liability to pay compensation. They pleaded that the first respondent suddenly crossed the road without noticing the oncoming insured vehicle.

2.2.The first respondent to prove his claim, examined himself as P.W.1 and further examined P.W.2 to P.W.5 on his side to prove the negligence and his health condition and income. He also marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. The witness documents also were marked under Ex.X1 to Ex.X6 and the disability certificate was marked as Ex.C.1. On the side of the respondent, neither documents nor oral evidence were adduced.

3. Finding of the Tribunal The learned Tribunal Judge considering the entire evidence, fixed negligence on the appellant insured lorry driver and awarded compensation of Rs.80,48,48067 under the following heads:

Assailing the said award, the appellant insurance company filed this appeal questioning the quantum.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that when Ex.P14 was marked as a last drawn salary of the first respondent, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.17,480/- as against the contents of Ex.P13 ie., Rs.13,531/-. The learned Tribunal Judge also added 40% of future prospects. The learned Tribunal Judge also wrongly calculated the age of the victim as 25 instead of 26. The learned Tribunal Judge without deducting the mediclaim amount has awarded medical expenditure of Rs.9,35,115/- and also erred in granting excessive amount under the head of loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, loss of pain and suffering, loss of marital prospects and under the head of purchase of prosthetic legs.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the claimants:

The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the appellant insured vehicle r