Manoj Kumar v. Pankaj Nagar & Ors.

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeks to assail the award dated 20.01.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in claim petition bearing MACP No. 564/2016 insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned.

2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,94,022/- alongwith interest @6% per annum in favour of the petitioner. The said amount includes a lumpsum amount of Rs.[2] lakhs awarded towards loss of future prospects.

3. The appellant seeks enhancement on two grounds, the first being that once the medical certificate clearly showed that the appellant was suffering from 34% permanent physical disability, the learned Tribunal could not have assessed his functional disability to be only 20%. The second ground on which enhancement is sought is that the amount of Rs.[2] lakhs awarded towards loss of future earnings was highly inadequate.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner’s functional disability was only 20% is perverse and the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation by treating his disability at 34%. Furthermore, the loss of future earnings ought to have been computed by taking into account the annual income of the appellant and applying the multiplier of 9.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned award by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar” 2011(1) SCC 343 as also on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MAC.APP. 1074/2011 titled as “The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sangeeta Nanda & Ors.” decided on 08.11.2017 and submits that despite the physical disability certificate, it is always open for the learned Tribunal to determine the functional disability after taking into account all the relevant factors including the fact as to whether the claimant is in a position to continue to work without any reduction in his salary. He submits that in the present case, it is an admitted position that the appellant is continuing to perform his job which he was doing on the date of the accident i.e. on 22.02.2016 and in fact, as admitted by the appellant’s own witness during cross-examination, he does not require any attendant for carrying out his day to day activities. He, therefore, contends that the determination of the appellant’s functional disability at 20% by the learned Tribunal was just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. He further submits that once the appellant is continuing to carry out his normal functions without any difficulty and there has been no reduction whatsoever of his salary, the petitioner cannot claim loss of future earnings by applying the multiplier of 9 to his annual income. He is however not in a position to seriously dispute the appellant’s claim that even if his functional disability is treated as 20%, the amount of Rs 2 lakhs awarded towards loss of future prospects is inadequate.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits on instructions that he does not press his plea for treating the functional disability of the appellant at 34%, but prays that the amount of Rs.[2] lakhs awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of future earnings be suitably enhanced by taking into account his functional disability at 20%.

7. In the light of the aforesaid rival stands taken by the parties, it is evident that the only question which needs to be determined is regarding the grant of compensation towards loss of future earnings. In my view, since the appellant is suffering from 20% functional disability, there will evidently be a loss in his future earnings as his functional disability will affect him even after his superannuation. Taking into account the appellant’s monthly salary of Rs. 32,160/-, the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs awarded on the ground of loss of future earnings is undoubtedly on the lower side. The impugned award is therefore required to be modified by enhancing the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of future earnings from Rs.[2] lakhs to Rs.[5] lakhs. The awarded amount accordingly, stands enhanced from Rs.6,94,002/- to Rs.9,94,002/-. The appellant will, accordingly, be paid a total compensation of Rs.9,94,002/- instead of Rs.6,94,002/-, which amount will bear interest @6% per annum as already awarded under the impugned award.

8. Even though as per the impugned award, compensation was to be paid to the respondents in instalments as per the disbursal scheme contained therein, taking into account that almost seven years have elapsed since the date of the accident, it is directed that the enhanced amount of Rs. 3 lakhs along with interest @ 6% per annum be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 6 weeks from today.

9. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE JANUARY 11, 2023