NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ASHOK RAIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, has taken except to the Judgment and Award dated 7.8.2007, passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Panaji, in a claim petition filed by the first respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter, referred to as 'the said Act'). The first respondent filed the claim petition on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The first respondent, who is a Medical Practitioner by profession, suffered an accident on 22nd October, 2001. The first respondent is a dermatologist. On 22nd October, 2001, at about 3.30 pm., he was proceeding from his residence at Caranzalem towards Mapusa in his Santro car. He was proceeding to attend his clinic. When the first respondent reached near Nova Cidade at Porvorim, suddenly a truck loaded with sand which was coming from opposite direction, came on its wrong side of the road and gave a dash to the Santro car of the first respondent. The case of the first respondent is that as a result of the impact, he sustained grievous injuries. According to him, he sustained compound fracture of the right humerus, blunt chest trauma, tissue injury on the right thigh and the right shoulders, head injury and blunt abdominal trauma, thereby leading to permanent disablement. The first respondent gave all details regarding medical treatment undergone by him. The claim is on account of permanent disability, loss of income, reimbursement of medical expenses, expenses of hospital stay and transport charges.

(2.) The second respondent is the driver of the offending truck and the third respondent is the owner of the offending truck. The second and the third respondents filed written statement, denying various averments made in the claim petition. The appellant also filed written statement. Though validity of the insurance was admitted, a contention was raised that it was the first respondent who was negligently driving his own car, which resulted into the accident. After parties adduced the evidence, by impugned Judgment and Award, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 12,05,000/-, together with interest thereon.

(3.) The challenge by the appellant is on the ground of quantum. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the material part of the impugned Judgment. He pointed out that the documents produced by the first respondent show income only for a period of 3 years. He submitted that the income taken by the learned Tribunal at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month is excessive. He pointed out that the documents produced by the first respondent show that even from the year commencing from 1st April, 2001 and ending with 31st March, 2002, professional income of the first respondent was of a sum of Rs. 4,72,250/-. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by granting a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- for actual loss of income for 11 months. He submitted that the income tax documents produced by the first respondent show that he has earned substantial income even after the accident and in the absence of any evidence to show that the first respondent did not earn any income from profession from 22nd October, 2001 till the end of September, 2002, there was no justification for grant of compensation on account of loss of income for the period of 11 months. He submitted that after considering permanent disability quantified at 17 %, the future loss of income by the first respondent has been quantified at Rs. 6,73,200/- and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to again grant compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/- on account of loss of income for a period of 11 months from 22nd October, 2001. He, therefore, submits that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 supported the impugned Judgment and Award.