NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The National Insurance Company Limited has filed this Appeal questioning the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu's Award of January 30, 2009 in File No. 267/Claim, whereby compensation amounting to Rs. 9,76,000/- was awarded to Pawan Kumar Respondent for the disability suffered by him as a result of the injuries received while travelling in a Matador, on its head on collision with a Tipper bearing Registration No. JK02E/1965, on March 13, 2006. Not disputing the findings of the Tribunal on the issues framed to deal Respondent No. 1 Claim Petition, barring the one pertaining to the quantum of compensation to which the claimant may be entitled to, the Appellant's learned Counsel, Mr. Jugal Kishore submitted, that having suffered 40% disability of the right upper limb, the claimant's loss of earning capacity was required to be assessed taking his monthly income at Rs. 1500/- and not Rs. 3000/- into consideration.

(2.) Substitution of the artificial limb having been ruled out by the Doctor produced by the Respondent to substantiate his Claim, the award of Rs. 2.00 lac to meet the expenses needed for substitution of the Artificial limb was impermissible, says the learned Counsel. Rs. 1.00 lac each awarded for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities and pleasures of life too has been questioned as unsustainable.

(3.) Appearing for the Respondent-claimant, Mr. Raghu Mehta, who was requested to assist the Court, as the Respondent, appearing in person, had expressed inability to ensure the presence of his learned Counsel to argue the Appeal, on the other hand, submitted that having lost all the prospects of promotion in the Police Department because of the disability suffered as a result of the injuries received in the Motor Vehicular Accident, the claimant was entitled to compensation more than the one awarded by the Tribunal, And the Award impugned in the Appeal may not, therefore, warrant interference. According to him had the claimant not suffered the disability, he would have risen to the rank of an Inspector in the Police Department and retired drawing not less than Rs. 20,000/- per month as Pension, besides receiving other Retiral benefits. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that having lost his right to consideration for permanent absorption, promotions and Pension in the Police Department, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, looked from any angle could not be termed as exorbitant or unjust as contended by the Appellant's learned Counsel. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence, the material placed on the records of the Tribunal by the claimant, and the Award impugned in the Appeal.