Compensation for permanent disability in motor accident cases must consider actual disability percentage, future prospects for government employees, and reasonable pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, regardless of voluntary premature retirement, provided the injury factually diminishes earning capability.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 17.07.2002 passed by MACT, Rewari (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.253 of 08.01.2001 in a petition under Sections 163/166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs. 2,59,443/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1, while driving offending vehicle bearing No.HR-34-5046 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No. 2, which was insured with respondent No. 3.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the ld. MACT:

1. Whether the accident in question resulting in injuries to petitioner was caused because of rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. HR-34/5046 by its driver respondent No. 1? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding any valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident? OPR No.3

4. Relief.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,443/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No. 1 to 3, jointly and severally.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. Along with the appeal claimant has moved an application bearing No.CM-12629-CII-2019 for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC with the averments that he had joined CRPF on 04.10.1980 and he had to take premature retirement on 31.10.2001 due to disability caused by the accident. One Bhim Singh had also joined CRPF on 25.11.1980 on the same post and he retired on 30.04.2016. Before 31.12.2015, appellant was drawing basic pension of Rs.4,030/- per month and after the 7th Pay Commission, he is drawing pension @ Rs.13,353/- per month as per letter dated 28.02.2018 (Annexure A-1) whereas his colleague Bhim Singh, who retired in ordinary course is drawing pension of Rs.30,084/- per month. Appellant is thus suffering loss of pension by Rs.16,731/- per month. Besides this, at the time of retirement, appellant had received a service gratuity of Rs.74,741/- as shown in his pension book Annexure A-3 whereas Bhim Singh has received gratuity of Rs.9,10,800/- as shown in his pension book Annexure A-4. At the time of retirement, employee of the Central Government gets leave encashment which is equivalent to his salary of 10 months i.e. 300 days but appellant had only received leave encashment of 52 days. Appellant had remained admitted in the hospital during treatment from 02.07.2000 to 11.03.2001, as also observed by the Tribunal and as such, he has received less leave encashment. These documents Annexures A-1 to A-5 are necessary for just and effective disposal of the appeal and he may be permitted to lead these documents by way of additional evidence.

7. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed reply and has opposed the same. It is submitted that the pension profile of said Bhim Singh