High Court · 2025

Mr. Yogesh Pant , Advocat e for t he respondent no.1. t he preferred The present Appeal from Order has 2. appellant , assailing t he j udgm ent and award dat ed 21.12.2019 passed by t he learned Mot or Accident Tribunal/ Addit ional Dist rict Judge, Khat im a, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 75 of 2017, whereby a sum of ₹14,02,200/- has been awarded as com pensat ion in favour of t he claim ant . Claim s t he Nakulia

3. On 14.11.2016, at about 02: 30 p.m ., no.1, while respondent proceeding from Sit arganj t o Shakt i Farm on a Scoot y, bearing regist rat ion No. UK06- AD- 1955, was hit from behind by a Truck, bearing regist rat ion No. HR58- A- 3601, which was being driven in a rash and negligent m anner near Am bedkar a School, t he consequence of said accident , sust ained grievous respondent no.1 init ially provided inj uries and was t reat m ent at t he Governm ent Hospit al, Sit arganj and, t hereaft er, she underwent furt her t reat m ent at Sai Hospit al and also at Cent ral Hospit al, Haldwani, during t he t o 24.12.2016. An F.I .R. relat ing t o t he said accident was lodged at Sit arganj Police St at ion, on 18.11.2016. Owing t o t he

09.12.2016 Bypass. period As t he t o discont inue her perm anent disabilit y suffered in t he said respondent no.1 has accident , t o walk and was becom e unable com pelled st udies, t hereby adversely affect ing her t hese grounds, fut ure prospect s. On respondent no.1 preferred a pet it ion, seeking com pensat ion t he tune of ₹20,00,000/- along wit h int erest t he claim t he dat e of pet it ion t ill it s realizat ion. filing of t o t he t hat counsel Learned illegalit y t he First

4. appearing behalf appellant –I nsurance Com pany has vehem ent ly cont ended t hat t he im pugned j udgm ent and award passed by t he learned Tribunal suffers from m anifest unsust ainable in t he eyes of law. I t is argued t hat t he Tribunal has failed t o appreciat e I nform at ion Report in t he present m at t er t hat was lodged aft er an unexplained delay of four t he alleged t he dat e of inordinat e delay cast s accident . Such serious doubt on t he occurrence of t he incident it self and, t herefore, t he claim ought t o have been viewed wit h great er circum spect ion. furt her been I t has argued learned Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing t he not ional income of respondent no.1 at ₹5,250/- per m ont h. I n t he absence of any cogent evidence est ablishing t he claim ant , t he assessm ent m ade by t he Tribunal is highly arbit rary, excessive, and cont rary t o t he set t led principles laid down by t he Court s for det erm inat ion of incom e. Learned counsel has not ional t he perm anent disabilit y at 40% , subm it t ing t hat t he m edical evidence on record does not j ust ify such det erm inat ion and, at docum ent ary t he act ual incom e of assessm ent assailed t hat t he best , t he funct ional disabilit y could have been assessed at 30% only. On all t hese count s, it is argued t hat t he award as passed is legally unt enable and deserves t o be set aside or suit ably m odified. cont ra, learned counsel 5. Per appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 has subm it t ed t hat t he findings ret urned by learned Tribunal are fully j ust ified and do not warrant any int erference by t his Court . I t is subm it t ed t hat respondent no.1 is an educat ed young wom an who, at t he t im e of accident , was pursuing her law st udies and had a bright fut ure t he ahead. Even ot herwise, as per prevailing rat es of m inim um wages, a skilled t o labourer sum of rem unerat ion exceeding a ₹9,000/- per m ont h. I n t his backdrop, t he assessm ent of not ional incom e m ade by the Tribunal at ₹5,250/- per m ont h is t he conservat ive side and cannot be said t o be excessive by any furt her counsel st andard. subm it s t he Tribunal has right ly appreciat ed t he m edical evidence while det erm ining t he ext ent of disabilit y, and t herefore, im pugned being j ust , fair and reasonable, calls for no int erference by t his Court . t he award Learned fact on ent it led t hat t he considered I n view of learned counsel

6. t he rival subm issions t he advanced by part ies and upon careful perusal of t he m at erial available on record, t his Court is t he assessm ent of perm anent disabilit y of respondent no.1 at 40% has been right ly det erm ined by t he learned Tribunal. The m edical evidence adduced has been duly appreciat ed and no infirm it y is found in such assessm ent , as consonance wit h t he principles laid down t he sam e t hat t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Raj Kum ar Vs. Aj ay Kum ar & anot her, report ed in ( 2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it t hat assessm ent of has been held perm anent disabilit y different iat ed from assessm ent of loss of earning capacit y and Tribunals should base com pensat ion on m edical evidence and act ual im pact on claim ant ’s earning abilit y aft er inj ury. m ust I n ( c) as, ( a) , ( b) & insofar t he case. t he heads

7. However, t he com pensat ion awarded by t he Tribunal concerned, t his Court finds t hat t he t ot al sum of ₹3,00,000/- awarded under t he aforesaid heads is on t he higher side and not com m ensurat e wit h t he fact s and t he circum st ances of considered opinion of t his Court , a sum of ₹2,00,000/- under t he said heads j ust ice and t he ends of would m eet const it ut e j ust com pensat ion in t erm s of Sect ion 168 of t he Mot or Vehicles Act , t he 1988. This approach aligns wit h principles t he Hon’ble laid down by Suprem e Court in t he case of “ Sm t . Sarla Verm a & Ot hers Vs. Delhi Transport Corporat ion & anot her” , ( 2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein t he Court em phasized appropriat e com pensat ion t he m ult ipliers based on fut ure claim ant rat io was prospect s. Furt her, in Nat ional reit erat ed I nsurance Com pany Lim it ed Vs. Pranay Set hi & Ot hers, report ed in ( 2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein t he Suprem e Court underscored considering j ust applying suit able m ult ipliers est ablished com pensat ion. landm ark j urisprudence t he age of im port ance prospect s t he fut ure assessm ent deceased report ed refined t hese The t he t he j udgm ent s guides t his Court t o m odify t he ensuring right ful ent it lem ent is adequat ely prot ect ed. com pensat ion t he claim ant ’s awarded

8. Accordingly, t he award passed by t he learned Tribunal st ands m odified t o t he aforesaid ext ent . The com pensat ion am ount shall carry t he sam e rat e of int erest as awarded by t he Tribunal. The appeal is part ly allowed t o t he ext ent indicat ed hereinabove. The st at ut ory t he appellant am ount deposit ed by before t he concerned court . t his Court be rem it t ed t o ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

26.09.2025 Arpan 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