2025:UHC:8345 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No.132 of 2020 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for the appellant/insurance company. Mr. Yogesh Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.1. 2. The present Appeal from Order has been preferred by the appellant, assailing the judgment and award dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 75 of 2017, whereby a sum of ₹14,02,200/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant. 3. On 14.11.2016, at about 02:30 p.m., the respondent no.1, while proceeding from Sitarganj to Shakti Farm on a Scooty, bearing registration No. UK06-AD-1955, was hit from behind by a Truck, bearing registration No. HR58-A- 3601, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner near Ambedkar School, Nakulia Bypass. As a consequence of the said accident, respondent no.1 sustained grievous injuries and was initially provided treatment at the Government Hospital, Sitarganj and, thereafter, she underwent further treatment at Sai Hospital and also at Central Hospital, Haldwani, during the period from 09.12.2016 to 24.12.2016. An F.I.R. relating to the said accident was lodged at Sitarganj Police Station, on 18.11.2016. Owing to the 2025:UHC:8345 permanent disability suffered in the said accident, the respondent no.1 has become unable to walk and was compelled to discontinue her legal studies, thereby adversely affecting her future prospects. On these grounds, respondent no.1 preferred a claim petition, seeking compensation to the tune of ₹20,00,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company has vehemently contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from manifest illegality and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the First Information Report in the present matter that was lodged after an unexplained delay of four days from the date of the alleged accident. Such inordinate delay casts serious doubt on the occurrence of the incident itself and, therefore, the claim ought to have been viewed with greater circumspection. It has further been argued that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the notional income of respondent no.1 at ₹5,250/- per month. In the absence of any cogent evidence or documentary proof establishing the actual income of the claimant, the assessment made by the Tribunal is highly arbitrary, excessive, and contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Courts for determination of notional income. Learned counsel has also assailed the assessment of permanent disability at 40%, submitting that the medical evidence on record does not justify such determination and, at 2025:UHC:8345 best, the functional disability could have been assessed at 30% only. On all these counts, it is argued that the award as passed is legally untenable and deserves to be set aside or suitably modified. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 has submitted that the findings returned by learned Tribunal are fully justified and do not warrant any interference by this Court. It is submitted that respondent no.1 is an educated young woman who, at the time of accident, was pursuing her law studies and had a bright future ahead. Even otherwise, as per the prevailing rates of minimum wages, a skilled labourer is entitled to remuneration exceeding a sum of ₹9,000/- per month. In this backdrop, the assessment of notional income made by the Tribunal at ₹5,250/- per month is in fact on the conservative side and cannot be said to be excessive by any standard. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the medical evidence while determining the extent of disability, and therefore, the award impugned being just, fair and reasonable, calls for no interference by this Court. 6. In view of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the assessment of permanent disability of respondent no.1 at 40% has been rightly determined by the learned Tribunal. The medical evidence adduced has been duly appreciated and no infirmity is found in such assessment, as the same is in consonance with the principles laid down 2025:UHC:8345 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it has been held that assessment of permanent disability must be differentiated from assessment of loss of earning capacity and Tribunals should base compensation on medical evidence and actual impact on claimant’s earning ability after injury. 7. However, insofar as, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads (a), (b) & (c) is concerned, this Court finds that the total sum of ₹3,00,000/- awarded under the aforesaid heads is on the higher side and not commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case. In the considered opinion of this Court, a sum of ₹2,00,000/- under the said heads would meet the ends of justice and constitute just compensation in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This approach aligns with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another”, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein the Court emphasized the assessment of compensation using appropriate multipliers based on the age of the claimant or deceased and future prospects. Further, the ratio was reiterated and refined in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein the Supreme Court underscored the importance of considering future prospects and applying suitable multipliers for just compensation. The established jurisprudence in these landmark 2025:UHC:8345 judgments guides this Court to modify the compensation awarded while ensuring the claimant’s rightful entitlement is adequately protected. 8. Accordingly, the award passed by the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The compensation amount shall carry the same rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court be remitted to the concerned court. (Alok Mahra, J.) 26.09.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20 dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9 87446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.09.26 17:53:07 +05'30'