FAO No. 988 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 988 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.05.2010 Kapil Dev Malhotra ....Appellant Versus Satish Vohra and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) CM No.5202-CII of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed, delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.988 of 2010 & CM No.5203-CII of 2010 This appeal, by the injured claimant, is directed against the award dated 14.5.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar, vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stands allowed. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding, that the appellant suffered injuries in a motor vehicular road accident on 22.9.2007 at about 2.45 p.m., caused by respondent No.1 while driving car bearing registration No.PB-65-C-1008, which was also owned by respondent No.1. The learned Tribunal also accepted the version of the appellant, that in the accident he had suffered permanent disability to the tune of 15%. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal granted FAO No. 988 of 2010 (O&M) -2- a sum of Rs.78,000/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand only) as compensation. The break-up of the compensation awarded reads as under: - “Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) towards medical expenses, including prescription fee, admission charges, operation fee, amount spent upon medicines, medical tests, hospital charges etc. A sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) was granted on account of pain, agony, sufferings and loss of happiness. For disability of 15%, the claimant/appellant was granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). A sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) has been allowed on account of amount spent on special diet, attendants and transportation charges.” In addition, the appellant was granted interest @6% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. Costs were also allowed. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned award on the quantum of compensation by contending, that the learned Tribunal has failed to assess the loss of income in view of the injuries suffered. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Sayed Nisar Ahmed Vs. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, 2004(1) T.A.C. 228, wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held, that the injured is also entitled to loss of future income as a result of injury, as due to injury the FAO No. 988 of 2010 (O&M) -3- prospective capacity to earn is lost. This judgment is of no help to the appellant because in the said case it was proved by the claimant that on account of injury, had lost his chances of promotion. But in the present case, it is not disputed that there is no evidence regarding loss of income. The learned Tribunal, therefore, granted compensation for permanent disability by taking it to be 15% and also granted compensation under different heads, which cannot be said to be inadequate or less, which may call for any interference by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 21, 2010 R.S.