The duty of the court is to award just and fair compensation to mitigate the suffering of the victim, guided by the principles of law and sense of justice, irrespective of the amount claimed in the petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. The task of adjudicating quantum of compensation payable under the non-pecuniary heads like pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life and loss of expectation of life, is not easy though appears to be easy. The task gets a bit more difficult if the claimant suffers a permanent disability at a young age. While quantifying the compensation under the non-pecuniary heads, the courts need to pause and ponder, particularly in a situation when the claimant suffers permanent disability.

2. Faced with a situation, where the claimant who suffered 40% permanent disability around his pelvic region, (on account of injuries which are referred later) claimed compensation of Rs.11,75,000=00, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,73,988=00. The doctor who treated the claimant assessed permanent disability at 40%. The doctor has opined that the claimant is unable to achieve a penile erection and nocturnal penile tumescence and thereby unable to copulate. According to the doctor, the condition is irreversible. Thus, the claimant who was aged 14 at the time of the accident, is in appeal. The insurer having admitted the liability has not questioned the award. However, is opposing the appeal for enhancement with all vehemence. Though, this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. The owner has not contested the claim petition and this appeal.

3. The very object of awarding compensation under non-pecuniary heads in a case relating to death or permanent disability is to restore, as far as possible, the position of the victim, to the situation that existed before the accident. In case of death or case of permanent disability, though the attempt is to restore the position of the claimant before the accident, no amount of compensation would restore the things as they stood before the accident. Tribunals and Courts are entrusted with the task of awarding compensation to mitigate the suffering to the best possible extent. However, the object of awarding compensation is not to confer a windfall on the claimant. The court/tribunal has to balance the conflicting claim of the victim and the tortfeasor. Bearing these principles in mind, this Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for contesting parties.

4. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal.

5. The petitioner who was walking on the road along with his father, is the victim of the unfortunate accident which occurred on 18.09.2011. The lorry bearing Reg. No.MH-12/QA-9760 came from behind and dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries and initially was shifted to OM Hospital, Ranebennur then to S.S. Hospital, Davanagere and later to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. The petitioner underwent two surgeries and was inpatient for 13 days.

6. According to the petitioner, he was a student and was also working as a supplier in a hotel. It is the case of the claimant that he has suffered a fracture of pubic rami, ruptured urethra, pelvic fracture and fracture of inferior ramus of the right hip bone resulting in permanent disability. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:

7. Learned counsel for the claimant inviting the attention of the Court to Ex.P.13-disability certificate issued by the doctor, would urge that given the fact that the