In motor accident compensation claims, assessing notional income in the absence of documentary evidence requires considering the victim's social status and real-world conditions rather than strictly adhering to minimum wage; furthermore, non-pecuniary damages and interest rates must be commensurate with the gravity of injury and prevailing economic conditions.

Mr. Himanshu Khanna, Advocate and Mr. Tajender Khanna, Advocate for the respondent(s)-Insurance Company. (in FAO No. 4204 of 2011)

Mr. Nigam Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company (in FAO Nos. 4206 & 4207 of 2011)

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By way of this common judgment, the present three appeals, arising out of the Award dated 01.12.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), are being disposed of. Vide the said Award, compensation of Rs. 23,200/- was granted to Ritu, Rs. 47,200/- to Sunil, and a sum of Rs. 4,55,000/- was awarded on account of the death of Smt. Parkash Rani. Since all the appeals emanate from the same accident and impugn the aforesaid Award, they are being adjudicated together.

As sole issue for determination in the present appeals is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT(S).

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned Award suffered from serious infirmities. It was submitted that the income of the deceased was erroneously assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month, despite cogent evidence on record demonstrating that the deceased was earning Rs. 16,000/- per month. He further argued that the learned Tribunal failed to grant just and reasonable compensation under the conventional heads, including loss of consortium, loss of estate, and appropriate funeral expenses. Additionally, it was contended that the amounts awarded towards medical expenses as well as pain and suffering were grossly inadequate and did not reflect the actual loss endured. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the rate of interest awarded at 6% per annum was on the lower side and warranted enhancement.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT/INSURANCE COMPANY.

Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent/Insurance Company, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant(s)/claimant(s).

FAO-4204-2011 (O&M)

Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid down in similar cases by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In “ Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors. ” reported as (2011) 1 SCC 343 the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries.

“6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, the compensation will granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical exp