JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is preferred by the injured-claimant as she was
aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 31.8.2012
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A. No.
2131 of 2008 even though it has enhanced the compensation from
[pic]6,46,000/- to [pic]18,22,000/- with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition under
various heads urging various facts and grounds in justification
of her claim.
(3.)The claimant-appellant is aggrieved by the determination of
monthly notional income of the deceased by the High Court by
taking a meager sum of [pic]6,000/- instead of [pic]18,000/-
per month as she is a student studying in the 11th Standard
holding first rank in her school. She had an excellent career
ahead of her but for the accident in which she has sustained
grievous injuries and has become a permanently disabled. Both
the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Poonamallee (for short "the
Tribunal") as well as the High Court of Judicature at Madras
failed to take into consideration all the relevant legal aspects
of the matter namely, having arrived at the conclusion that on
account of permanent total disablement suffered by the claimant-
appellant on account of injuries sustained in the accident her
future loss of income should have been assessed taking into
consideration, her age at the time of accident which was 16 and
that she is a brilliant student and could have acquired
professional degree and procured a well paid job either in
public or private sector thereby at least she would have earned
a sum of [pic]18,000/- per month. Also, the future prospects of
revision of wages, dearness allowance, increments and
promotional benefits could have been earned by her. However,
because of the accident caused by rash and negligent act of the
driver of the offending vehicle of the owner- respondent she has
been deprived of her potential income to eke out a comfortable
livelihood as she has become permanently disabled, this legal
and factual aspect has not been taken into consideration both by
the Tribunal and the High Court. Therefore, she placed reliance
upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 6 SCC 421, having regard to
her age, 50% of the future prospects should have been added by
both the Tribunal and Appellate Court to the notional monthly
income that could be fixed for determination of the loss of
earning as she had lost her earning capacity as she has become
permanently disabled. Therefore, the compensation under this
head of loss of earnings is required to be enhanced
considerably.