The court upheld the Medical Board's assessment of 100% disability, emphasizing the need for adequate compensation for pain and suffering, ultimately awarding Rs.48,70,000/- to the claimant.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted. This appeal is at the instance of the claimant-appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th April, 2023 passed in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3050 of 2017 by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench¹[The ‘impugned order’], while entertaining an appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 18th January, 2017, passed in Claim No.575/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar²[The ‘Tribunal’].

2. On 23rd March, 2014, the claimant-appellant was returning to his village Rajpur Badha from Cheel Ki Bawdi on his motorcycle bearing No.RJ 02 SC 4860, when another vehicle, a Maruti Omni bearing No.RJ 02 UA 1663 came from the opposite direction, on the wrong side of the road. The claimant- appellant suffered numerous injuries including on the head and his right leg. FIR No.81/14 was registered at Police Station Tehla, and he was taken, first to Katta Hospital, Bandikui, and thereafter, to Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur. Although, he survived his accident, he is in a comatose state.

3. The learned Tribunal framed three primary issues :

a) Concerning rashness and negligence of the allegedly offending vehicle;

b) The entitlement of the petitioner-claimant appellant to receive compensation and the extent thereof;

c) Liability of the insurance company, if any.

4. On the first count, it was found that the respondents had not presented any evidence which would dislodge the case of the claimant-appellant. It was found that the Maruti Omni had indeed been responsible for the accident, being driven at high speed and negligently. On the second count, the conclusion of the Tribunal is as under :

“Therefore, according to the above discussion, the compensation amount to be given to Petitioner is determined in the following manner:-

The third issue of liability of the insurance company was decided against them.

5. On appeal, the High Court held as under:

“It is an admitted position that no neurosurgeon and treating doctor were produced by the claimant to prove hundred percent disability of the claimant before the Tribunal. So, in my considered opinion, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that disability certificate Ex.16 was not duly proved by the claimant. So, the Tribunal rightly assessed the disability of the injured to the extent of 50%. It is also admitted position that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount regarding future prospects of the injured. So, in my considered opinion, claimant was below 50 years of age, claimant is entitled to get 25% towards future prospects.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is party allowed. The judgment and award dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that