R.L. Anand, J.@mdashThe Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the award dated 12.8.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, which awarded a sum of Rs. 2,11,400/- to respondent Shri Om Parkash, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till recovery.
2. Some fads can be noticed in the following manner : Shri Om Parkash was working as SHO of Police Station Gharaunda at the relevant time when the accident took place on 16.7.1993. He sustained injuries when he was travelling in a jeep which was insured by the appellant. The injured received multiple grievous injuries on various parts of his body including a fracture on his right leg with other lacerated wounds and abrasions. He was aged 46 years at the time of accident. Om Parkash respondent was shifted to Dr. Vijay Gupta''s Nursing Home, Karnal, where he remained admitted as an indoor patient considerably for a long time and then he obtained treatment from that Dr. Vijay Gupta as outdoor patient. He remained admitted as indoor patient from 16.7.1993 to 11.8.1993. Criminal case regarding this accident was registered in P.S. City Karnal bearing FIR No. 461 dated 16.7.1993 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The claimant filed the claim petition and claimed a compensation to the tune of rupees 8 lacs and the case set up by him before the Tribunal was that he was very active and well versed in police activities and used to take part in drill, physical training, crossing jumps and obstacles. He was considered to be an ideal officer and it was on account of his hard work and labour that he had been passed as SHO of P.S. Gharaunda but on account of this accident his chance of promotion has been marred. A number of operations were performed on his leg and 90 degree condylar plate with 9 holes was inserted in his leg which was stitched with 40 stitches. He further alleged that during the period of treatment he was unable to answer the cal! of nature in a proper manner. He was not in a position to move and had to arrange an attendant round the clock to look after him. He took costly medicines prescribed by the doctor and he also took rich diet. After the accident he has become a permanently crippled man and is unable to sit, squat, run, climb stairs, move fast, sit cross legged, pedal a cycle and drive a vehicle and he has become absolutely incapable of discharging the functions of a senior police officer. The claim petition was filed against the driver, owner and the insurance company.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the accident took place on account of negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 Prem Chand in driving jeep No. HR10-6088 and in that accident petitioner received injuries ? OPP
2. Whether at the time of accident respondent No. I Prem Chand had no valid driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy ? OPR-3
3. Whether the claim petition is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR-3
4. How much compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom ? OPP
5. Relief.
4. Parties were given the opportunities to lead evidence. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of claimant and issue was No. 2 was decided against the respondents. Issue No. 3 was also decided against the respondents. Issue No. 4 was decided partly in favour of the claimant and a sum of Rs. 2,11,400/- was awarded by showing the following break-up as given in para No. 20 of the award :-
1. Rs. 11,200/- on account of charges obtained by doctor Vijay Gupta.
2. Rs. 34,200/- on account of expenses on medicines.
3. Rs. 41,000/- in lieu of earned leave obtained by the claimant after the accident for his treatment during which he remained confined to bed.
4. Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss due to future prospects in career. 5. Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and sufferings :
6. Rs. 5000/- on account of transport.
7. Rs. 10,000/- on account of special diet and ail this makes a total of Rs. 2,11.400/-."
5. In the relief issue, interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till recovery was also awarded by the Tribunal. Not satisfied with the award of the MACT, the present appeal has been preferred.
6. I have heard Shri Subhash Goyal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Baljinder Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
7. In this appeal, the impugned award has been challenged on a limited aspect: "whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of rupees one lac which was awarded to the claimant on account of loss due to future prospects in career. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. The interest could be awarded by the Tribunal for a vested right and for the vested loss and not for the loss which might occur to the respondent Om Parkash concerning future prospects in career. Though the Tribunal had the right to say that the claimant would suffer loss concerning future prospects in career, on account of the injury.
8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that rupees one lac has been awarded to the claimant being the amount of compensation, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding interest at the rate of 12% on this amount.
9. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding interest on amount of rupees one lac which was awarded to the claimant on account of loss due to future prospects in career as this amount was to accrue to the claimant with the lapse of time and after the accident and even after the decision of the Tribunal.
10. In this view of the matter, this appeal is partly allowed and it is hereby ordered that the interest shall be calculated at the rate of 12% on Rs. 1,11,400/- from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment. However, it is clarified that the claimant shall get compensation of Rs. 2,11,400,/-. There shall be no order as to costs. The appellant shall pay the remaining amount to respondent Om Parkash within one month.
11. Appeal partly allowed
