MAIN POINT
Factors and heads to be considered while determining compensation discussed.

JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2013 passed in M.A No. 3414 of 2010 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, wherein the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the appellant by modifying the award passed by the MACT, Mandsor, M.P, in claim case No. 3 of 2009 dated 29.07.2010

3. The relevant facts of the case are stated as under:

On 12.11.2008 at about 6.30 p.m, Jakir Hussein, the appellant herein, was driving a Tempo bearing registration No. MP-14-G-0547 from Krishi Upaj Mandi, Mandsor to Multanpura village, Madhya Pradesh. A few others were also riding along with the appellant, namely, Santosh, Kumari Krishna, Smt. Paipa Bai etc. While the appellant was on the way, a tractor bearing registration No. MP 14-K- 4886 which was driven by Sabir-respondent no. 1 herein, in rash and negligent manner hit the appellant's tempo which was coming from the opposite direction with enormous force. Due to the impact of the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The right arm of the appellant had severe compound fractures preventing him from performing his regular work as a driver hereafter. At the time of the said accident, the appellant was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month by working as a driver.

4. The appellant filed Claim Petition No. 3 of 2009 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional First Member, Mandsor, Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal determined the permanent disability suffered by the appellant on account of the motor vehicle accident at 30% and his monthly income was taken at Rs. 3,000/- for the purpose of assessing annual income of the appellant to compute his loss of future earnings. On the basis of the annual income, his future loss of income due to permanent disability suffered by him was estimated at Rs. 1,72,800/- and loss of income at Rs. 51,000/-. Medical expenses was estimated at Rs. 1,80,000/-. The total compensation of Rs. 4,38,000/- with an interest at the rate of 7% p.a was awarded to the appellant by the Tribunal as against a claim of Rs. 8,80,000/- made by him.

5. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal regarding inadequate compensation, the appellant filed M.A No. 3414 of 2010 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The High Court opined that the income of appellant has been taken on the lower side by the Tribunal and determined the same at Rs. 4,000/- per month. The High Court after re-determination of the compensation held that the appellant is entitled to an enhancement of Rs. 1,77,200/- towards permanent disability and addition of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering. In addition to that amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses. The High Court has further awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses during the pendency of the appeal. Further, it has awarded interest at the rate of 8% p.a on the enhanced compensation. Being unsatisfied with the enhanced compensation by the High Court, the appellant filed this appeal.

6. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Parameshwara, who is appointed to assist this Court as amicus curiae has contended that the compensation awarded by both the Tribunal and the High Court is wholly inadequate. It is submitted by him that the High Court has committed a serious error in law in not awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant by taking various factual aspects such as permanent disability suffered by him, medical evidence and keeping in view the law on the relevant aspects for quantifying just and reasonable compensation both under the heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. It is further urged by him that on the motor vehicle accident caused by the respondent-driver on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the appella