HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU MA No.191/2011 Reserved on: 17.07.2025 Pronounced on: 23.07.2025 S. Manvinder Singh Tara, Age 29 years S/o S. Joginder Singh Tara R/o 65, Mohalla Afghana, Pacca Danga, Jammu. ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate V/s 1. Randhir Singh S/o Sh. Siyan Singh R/o Gho Manhasan, Jammu 2. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, S/o Sh. Girish Chander Gupta, R/o 61-62, Sarwal Colony, Jammu Manmdir Morh, Ward No.18, Jammu 3. Bajaj Allianz Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 174, Wahi Niwas Canal Road, Jammu ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate for R-3 CORAM: HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, against the award/judgment dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the “Tribunal”) in File No.110/Claim of 2008 titled S. Manvinder Singh Tara v. Randhir Singh and others, the appellant is seeking enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. 2 2. The facts in brief, which led to the filing of instant appeal are that on 29th December, 2007, the appellant was driving his motorcycle and one Varun Deep Verma was sitting as a pillion rider, when they reached near Naka Tawi Bridge, Sidhra Morh at about 4.30 pm, a truck bearing Registration No.JK02AG-1692, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, while coming from the opposite direction hit the motorcycle of the appellant, both appellant and pillion rider fell down on the road, as a result, they sustained multiple injuries including fractures. The appellant was taken to GMC, Jammu from where he was shifted to Amritsar for specialized treatment. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. With respect to the accident, an FIR came to be lodged, which culminated into filing of challan against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant herein lodged a claim before the Tribunal thereby claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.41.45 lac on account of the disability suffered by him in the accident. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether an accident occurred on 29.11.2007 near Tawi Bridge, Sidhra Morh by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No.1692-JK02AG being driven in the hands of erring driver in which petitioners S. Manvinder Singh Tara and Varun Deep Verma sustained grievous injuries? 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners in each case are entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether at the time of accident driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and drove the 3 vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy ? OPR-3 4. Relief. OP parties.” 4. In order to substantiate his claim, appellant besides himself entering the witness box has also examined Harmeet Singh, S. Joginder Singh, Dr. Dara Singh. The respondent, on the other hand, has not produced any evidence in rebuttal. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence oral as well documentary produced before it, taking the annual income of the appellant at Rs.50,000/-, disability @ 30% and applying the multiplier of 16, assessed the future loss of income to the appellant as Rs.2,40,000/-. The Tribunal, accordingly, awarded compensation in favour of the appellant/claimant in the following manner:- 1. For loss of future income Rs.2,40,000/- 2. For medical expenses Rs.1,28,740/- 3. For pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- 4. For loss of amenities of life Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.4,43,740/- However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,43,800/- along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum except on future loss of income, from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 5. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has approached this Court by way of instant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated law as well as facts on record in its right perspective. 6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.50,000/- per annum, whereas the average monthly income of the appellant, who was 4 doing part time job with Shere Khan Group and Shere Khan Franchise Ltd, London comes to about Rs.48,500/- and in this regard the appellant has placed on record 53 pay slips before the Tribunal. As per the learned counsel for the appellant, the loss of future income deserves to be enhanced from Rs.2,40,000/- to Rs.23,04,000/-. As per the appellant, the Tribunal was also wrong in awarding only Rs.1,28,740/- as medical expenses and that no amount on account of future treatment has been awarded. It is stated that the Tribunal has also failed to award any amount for special diet. It is further stated that no amount on account of personal attendant expenses has been granted when it was specifically pleaded in the claim petition. The appellant also sought compensation on account of loss of academic year. It is stated that the Tribunal has not added anything to the income assessed on the account of loss of future prospects. Reliance has been placed on National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sehti and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 and Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, AIR 2013 SC 3880. 7. Per contra, Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supporting the award of the Tribunal states that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by way of impugned award is just and fair compensation, which cannot be found fault with. It is stated that the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the appellant as Rs.50,000/- per annum, which is on the higher side. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that since no witness was examined on behalf of the company which was alleged to have 5 issued the salary slips, to prove the salary slips produced by the appellant, the Tribunal was right in not taking into account the salary slips produced by the appellant. In this regard he has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Nagar Mal and others v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, AIR 2018 SC 568, and a Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench in A. Prabahar v. K. Rajendran and another, 2024 ACJ 2453. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The factum of accident in which the appellant sustained injuries due to which he suffered permanent disability of 30% is not in dispute. The appellant has claimed that while he was studying in London, he was earning about Rs.48000/- per month by working part time and has also placed on record the pay slips, however, the pay slips remained unproved as no witness from the company with which the appellant was working, has been examined to prove the salary slips. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the appellant/claimant, who was a student at the time of accident, as Rs.50,000/- per annum. The Supreme Court in the case of Shri Nagar Mal (supra) has observed as under:- “No witnesses were examined on behalf of the companies which were alleged to have issued the certificates to prove the certificates. Evidently there was a failure to establish that the deceased, who was a student pursuing his CA was in receipt of a monthly income of 6 Rs.15,000/-. Hence we are of the view that the assessment of income by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.” 10. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, the assessment of income of the appellant by the Tribunal as Rs.50,000/- per annum cannot be found fault with because of the failure of the appellant to prove the salary slips. However the Tribunal has not added anything in the assessed income toward the loss of future prospects. As per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and followed in subsequent judgments, an addition of 40% is to be made in the case where victim is below the age of 40 years. Indisputably, the appellant/claimant was 28 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, adding 40% to the assessed income of the appellant, the annual income comes to (5,0000+20,000) Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 16 whereas for the age group of 26 to 30, the multiplier of 17 is provided [see Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121]. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in reducing the multiplier. 11. Accordingly, in the instant case appropriate multiplier is 17 and addition of 40% to the assessed income is required to be made on account of loss of future prospects. Therefore, taking the annual income of the claimant as Rs.70,000, taking the permanent disability @ 30%, which is not in dispute and adopting the multiplier of 17, the total loss of future income would come to ( 70000 x 30% x 17) to Rs.3,57,000. 7 12. The amount awarded by the Tribunal for medical expenses needs no change, as the Tribunal has granted the amount for which bills have been brought on record. However, the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future medical expenses, whereas the doctor in his statement has stated that for taking out the implants put inside the legs of the appellant, another operation is to be performed and that ligaments of the right knee of the petitioner is torn, which also needs surgical repair. As per the doctor, wherever appellant has got operated he has to go to frequent check-ups as a part of the follow up. Since the appellant has to undergo two surgeries, as such, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- needs to be awarded on account of future medical expenses and special diet. 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life, which, in my opinion is not appropriate. The appellant was pursuing his MBA in London and must have high expectations but due to the accident the appellant is unable to run or walk long distances, as per the statement of the doctor, there is also loss of expectation of life, normal longevity is shortened and that he would face inconvenience and hardship for whole of his life. Therefore, Rs.25,000/- is not an appropriate amount for loss of amenities of life, as such, same needs enhancement. Accordingly, the appellant is held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- account of loss of amenities of life. 12. For all what has been discussed above, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is held entitled the following amount of compensation:- For loss of future income Rs.3,57,000/- 8 For Medical expenses Rs.1,28,740/- For future medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/- and special diet Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- For loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.7,35,740/- The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Other terms of the award shall remain intact. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the modified award within a period of four weeks. Jammu: 23.07.2025 Vinod ) (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Whether the judgment is reportable: No Vinod Kumar 2025.07.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document