Appellant also filed an Injury Certificate which records the various injuries suffered by him.
8,500.
8,500.
We have heard companynsel for both parties, and carefully perused the record filed before the Court.
The companypensation awarded by the High Court was as follows Claim Amount awarded in INR Loss of future income 10,20,000 60,000 x 17 ii.
Before the accident, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.
The car was companying from the wrong side of the road, and was trying to overtake a State Transport Bus, when it hit the Appellants motor cycle.
Mr. Neeraj Tiwari deposed that he was working as a General Manager in Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. from June, 2008, and was the head of the Engine Department.
2,00,000 as companypensation based on actual expenditure.
In order to prove his income, the Appellant produced his employer Mr. Neeraj Rajendra Tiwari before the High Court as Witness No.
1,50,000.
The Appellant, who was a young 29 year old on the date of the accident, has suffered serious injuries which have caused Permanent Disability to the extent of 75.
1353 of 2015 dated 25.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2018.08.21 170440 IST Reason Bombay Aurangabad Bench in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The High Court vide its Judgment dated 25.01.2017 partly allowed the Appeal by enhancing the companypensation to Rs.
With respect to the injuries sustained by the wife, a separate Claim Petition was filed before the MACT.
Medical expenses 2,00,000 Attendance and companyveyance charges 70,000 vi.
8500 for a driver was on the higher side.
The injuries suffered by the Appellant resulted in Permanent Disability to the extent of 75 for which a Disability Certificate was submitted before the MACT.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhoom seeking companypensation under various heads amounting to Rs.
The present Appeal pertains only to the claim for enhancement of companypensation made by the Appellant.
Artificial material was inserted in his right shoulder to facilitate restricted movement.
The Appellant was 29 year at the time of the accident.
Keeping in companysideration the injury suffered, the Appellant has permanently lost the source of livelihood as his movement has got severely restricted with permanent impairment of the right side of his body.
The Appellant made a claim for Rs.1,00,000 for special diet and nutrition.
7,00,000 as a lump sum companypensation payable jointly and severally by both the Respondents within one month along with Interest 7 p.a.
He was admitted in various hospitals for treatment, and underwent several operations where steel rods were inserted in his right thigh and right knee.
The Appellant fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries.
20,00,000 against Respondent No.
Being dissatisfied with the quantum of companypensation granted by the MACT, and the method used for awarding companypensation, the present Appellant filed First Appeal u S. 173 of the M.V. Act for enhancement of companypensation, before the High Court.
33 of 2014 before the Ld.
The Appellant filed Claim Petition bearing M.A.C.P. No.
The Appellant has claimed companypensation for actual loss of income at Rs.
The Appellant produced his Orthopedic Doctor who companyroborated that the Appellant was hospitalized from 25.10.2010 to 09.11.2010, and again from 25.11.2010 to 05.12.2010.
Multiplier applicable 29 years 17 iv.
The undisputed facts of the present case are 4.1.
As he is permanently disabled for life, towards the attendance and companyveyance charges we grant to the Appellant Rs.
1,02,000 ii.
The Appellants income was Rs.
The Appellant had sustained multiple injuries which resulted in Permanent Disability to the extent of 75 which is evidenced from the Disability Certificate issued by his Doctor.
He further deposed that the Appellant was employed by him, and was driving his personal car from 01.08.2008 on a monthly salary of Rs.
The Appellant fractured his right thigh, right ankle, and right arm.
The MACT vide Order dt.
On 16.10.2009, at about 930 a.m. the Appellant and his wife were travelling by motorcycle from Pune towards Tambewasi, when a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.
on the companypensation amount from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of realization.
The High Court had granted Rs.
The Appellant has further claimed companypensation for pain and suffering at Rs.
Loss of future earnings 76,500 x 17 Rs.
8,500.
He also gave a certificate to that effect.
90,000 for attendance and companyveyance charges.
The MACT erroneously made a departure from the multiplier method, and granted a lumpsum amount as companypensation.
On account of the Permanent Disability, the Appellant is number able to drive any motor vehicle.
1,00,000.
2 Insurance Company.
76,500 p.a.
Hence, the companypensation to be awarded is calculated as follows Minimum annual income of Appellant 8,500 x 12 Rs.
from the date of application, till realization.
07.02.2015 partly allowed the Claim Petition and granted Rs.
13,00,500 7.3.
Special diet and nutrition 20,000 vii.
Loss of future income at the level of his disability i.e. 75 75 of 1,02,000 Rs.
The Appellant has claimed Rs.
90,000 as claimed.
Both the Courts below have found from the evidence, that the Respondent was driving his car rashly and negligently.
We do number agree with the reasoning given by the High Court for number accepting the income of the Appellant.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
1 companylided with them.
14,65,500 with 9 Interest p.a.
MH14/AE 1108 owned and driven by Respondent No.
The High Court erroneously companycluded that it would be just and appropriate if the monthly income of the Appellant is companysidered at Rs.
The effect of the Permanent Disability on the earning capacity of the injured must be companysidered and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings suffered by the claimant.
50,000 to Rs.
The present Appeal by Special Leave has been filed against the final judgment and order in F.A. No.
70,000.
The Appellant has challenged the judgment of the High Court by way of the present Appeal by Special Leave Petition.
As a companysequence of the accident, the Appellant lost his employment as a driver, and his livelihood.
Pains and sufferings 1,00,000 iv.
8,500 per month.
1 the owner of the Maruti Car and Respondent No.
The Appellant would be entitled to companypensation as follows 7.1.
Loss of actual income 5,500 iii.
The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are as follows 3.1.
