There was ‘no presumption that son of a poor man could not rise to level of an IAS officer or a successful businessman’, said the Delhi High Court while hearing an appeal filed by an insurance company on the issue of loss of future income.
Justice S.N. Dhingra while dismissing the appeal filed by the New India Insurance said: ‘There is no presumption that son of a poor man shall, even after studies, turn out to be only a skilled workman and has no probability of rising to the level of top executive or an IAS officer or a successful businessman or a politician.’
The court said this while upholding the Motor Vehicle Tribunal’s compensation of Rs.444,000 to Akshay Sharma whose lower limb was injured in an accident in May 2004.
At that time, Akshay was studying in class IV when he was hit by vehicle being driven in negligent manner.
He suffered multiple fractures and was treated at Satyam Hospital, Rohini.
The tribunal asked for assessing of the disabilities of the child in view of the nature of injuries sustained and the hospital assessed the disability at 22 percent.
The company had challenged the tribunal order by stating that the compensation awarded against it is of future of loss of income.
‘That 22 percent disability was only in respect of one lower limb and not in respect of the whole body and the court should not have calculated future loss of income at 22 percent. It is pleaded that since the injured was a student, his life was full of uncertainties, and who could say as to what would be the future of the student,’ the company said.
The court said: ‘The tribunal in this case has kept in mind the future uncertainties of life. The tribunal has taken most conservative estimate of loss of future income of the injured on the basis of his becoming a skilled workman. Since the child in this case was a student and had also lost one year due to this accident, the tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of studies and loss of his one academic year. The tribunal had not taken into account loss of his marriage prospects.’
‘The amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal in no manner could be considered excessive or a windfall,’ the court said.