GUNDA NEUBAUER Vs. BHANWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing an award dated 8th August 2007 passed by learned Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded to the appellant was inadequate.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are that that appellant, a German national, had come to India as a tourist. She was traveling in a bus and was going to Mount Abu from Udaipur when the said bus met with an accident with a truck coming from opposite direction. In this accident, the appellant lost her arm on junction up one third and middle one third. She filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and she was awarded compensation in following terms: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1490_ILRDLH20_2010Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that it was not in consonance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal had not taken into consideration the future prospects of the appellant despite there being sufficient evidence on record to show that the appellant had a bright future growth prospects. The Tribunal arbitrarily restricted the damages of loss of earnings to 20% of her earning capacity instead of 70% of her earning capacity. The Tribunal should have calculated loss of earning capacity in terms of Schedule-I Part- II of the Workmen Compensation Act. It is further submitted that the Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax and surcharge out of gross income for calculating the loss of income. The Tribunal should have calculated loss of income taking into account the gross income. The Tribunal wrongly applied conversion rate of 13.65 per Dutch Mark after calculating loss of income in Dutch Marks whereas the currency prevalent at the time of making award was EURO. The Tribunal also did not award amount for purchasing a special car by the appellant as after accident she could not drive ordinary car. The Tribunal did not award costs of petition in favour of the appellant and the Tribunal did not take into consideration that the appellant has to incur future expenses on an attendant.