AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anent disability. He filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for grant of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. An application for amendment of the said claim petition was filed raising the amount of compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/- . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by a judgment and award dated 15th March, 1986 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,83,000/-, details whereof are as under: "i) Damage on account of agony, shock pain and suffering of the appellant Rs. 50,000.00 ii) Damages on account of hospitalization including medicines Rs. 20,000.00 iii) Damages on account of loss of income Rs. 1,12,000.00 iv) Damages on account of the damage caused to the scooter Rs. 1,000.00 Total Rs. 1,83,000.00" T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to whether he having suffered permanent disability would be entitled to any further compensation as he may have to engage a driver to drive his car in future. A contention as regards higher amount of compensation was also raised towards purported loss of prospective income. The Division Bench by reason of the impugned judgment enhanced only the amount of compensation under the head of 'loss of income' from Rs. 1,12,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- relying on the decision of this Court in Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [(2001) 8 SCC 197]. Still not satisfied, Appellant is before us. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant, would inter alia submit that the High Court committed an err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uted. Appellant on 6.8.1984 was riding on a scooter. His scooter dashed with a tempo bearing No. CHW 4257. He in his application initially claimed only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation. He did not claim any interest on the said amount. He, as noticed hereinbefore, filed an application for amendment of the claim petition only at a much later stage. The learned Tribunal noticed the extent of injuries suffered by him and also took into consideration the evidences of doctors who had examined and treated him and awarded compensation under different heads. In regard to his future loss of income, the Tribunal noticed his income tax returns for the financial year prior to his meeting with the accident as also the year in question. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 57,600/-. He furthermore awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Division Bench, in our opinion, had also taken a somewhat liberal view in favour of Appellant than he deserved. The Division Bench of the High Court opined that Appellant might have to engage a driver and for the said purpose awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month from the date of filing of claim petition till the award by the Tribunal. Appellant now wants the amount of compensation to be enhanced on that head. We decline to do so for more than one reason. Appellant has not proved that he had bought a car. He even on the date of accident was merely riding on a scooter. He has not brought on record any evidence to show that even at that poin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken into consideration. We may notice that in that case multiplier of 15 was applied. The Tribunal had noticed that the income of the deceased was assessed only at Rs. 3,500/- per month and, thus, the loss of dependency should have been enhanced to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month. This Court instead of granting Rs. 42,000/- per year increased the same to Rs. 45,000/- per year and the loss of dependency was, thus, calculated at Rs. 30,000/- instead of Rs. 28,000/-. The claimant in that case was a salaried person. Appellant herein before us is in legal profession. He may have suffered some injuries but the same would not mean that he would not be in a position to rise in his profession only by reason thereof. We, therefore, decline to en....