ORDER :

G.S. Singhvi, S.J. Mukhopadhaya, JJ.

Leave granted.

2. The Appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal filed by him u/s 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') against award dated 14.5.2009 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 184 of 2008.

3. In an accident, which occurred on 25.8.2007, the Appellant sustained fracture in his right thigh. He was operated upon by Dr. Suresh Chand Bandil, AW 2, and a steel rod was inserted in his thigh.

4. In the claim petition filed by him u/s 166 of the Act, the Appellant prayed for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. He pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. MP 07-HA 7334 by Anil Raheja, the Respondent No. 1, and as a result thereof, he had suffered permanent disability in his right thigh and was not able to do the work of salesman, which he was doing before the accident. In the written statement filed on behalf of insurance company, Respondent No. 3, it was pleaded that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and, in any case, the insurer was not liable because Respondent No. 1 was driving the tractor in violation of the conditions of policy and without having valid driving licence.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether on 25.8.2007, the non-applicant caused hurt to Manoj Rathaur by hitting him while driving the tractor No. MP 07-HA 7334 rashly and negligently?

2. Whether the applicant suffered permanent disability due to said accident?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000?

4. Whether on the date of accident, the non-applicant No. 1 had violated the terms of the policy by driving the vehicle without permit and without fitness certificate?

5. Relief and costs?

6. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the Respondent No. 1. However, the Tribunal discarded the testimony of the Appellant by observing that the statement made by him about his monthly income was not supported by any other evidence. The Claims Tribunal also did not believe the Appellant's assertion that he had suffered permanent disability and observed that Dr. Suresh Chand Bandil, AW 2, had not examined the Appellant scientifically for determining that he has suffered 20-25 per cent permanent disability. The Tribunal finally held that Appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 18,800 only.

7. The learned single Judge of the High Court summarily dismissed the appeal filed against the award of the Tribunal on the premise that the Appellant had failed to prove that as a result of accident he had suffered injury and became permanently disabled to the extent of 20-25 per cent.

8. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The criteria for determination of compensation in the cases of permanent and temporary disability suffered by the victim of an accident has been laid down in the recent judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 and Another, in the following words:

“The provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from the consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences is inevitable. A person is not onl