JUDGEMENT :- This Appeal is filed by the claimant, in Claim Petition no. 8 of 2004, against the judgment and award dated 31/07/2006, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Goa (Tribunal), in the said case.

2. On 03/04/2002 at 11.40 p.m. at Bambolim near Military Camp, an accident had taken place. The case of the claimant was that he was proceeding from Siridao to Bambolim, as pillion rider, on a motor cycle bearing No. GA-01-Y-8619, which was driven by Savio Afonso. A Mahindra Jeep bearing no. MH-07-3557 driven by the respondent no. 2 came form opposite direction. According to the claimant, it came at a fast speed and entered "No Entry" lane and dashed against the motor cycle, due to which the rider of the motor cycle died on the spot whereas the claimant sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent disablement.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that the said Mahindra Jeep belonging to the respondent no. 1, was driven by respondent no. 2 and was insured with the respondent no. 3 and the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident.

4. The claimant had examined himself and four more witnesses, in support of his case. The respondents No.1 and 2 had not contested the case, which had proceeded ex-parte as against them. There is no dispute that the said Mahindra Jeep bearing No. MH-07-3557 was driven by the respondent No.2, in a rash and negligent manner and it is also not disputed that as a result of the accident which took place between the said jeep and the motor cycle bearing no. GA-OI-Y-8619, on which the claimant was a pillion rider, the claimant sustained grievous injuries.

5. The evidence of CW 5, Dr. Francis Akkara, read with the permanent disability certificate, which is at Exhibit 42 duly establishes that the claimant had paresthesia (numbness) of left lower orbital area and fourth tooth on the left upper side was missing. There was fracture to the upper second tooth. CW 5 had assessed the' permanent disablement at 22.5%.

6. All the above facts, which have been duly proved by the claimant, are not disputed by the respondents No. 1 and 2.

7. The only point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is unreasonable and inadequate and if so what should be the just and reasonable compensation.

8. 'The claimant had claimed the total compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/-. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 52,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition til1 the entire amount is paid. The respondents jointly and severally have to pay the said amount. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- paid under "No fault liability" has been ordered to be adjusted.

9. Heard learned Advocate Shri V. D. Pangam on behalf of the claimant and learned Advocate Shri J. Godinho on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2. The counsel for the insurance company (respondent No.3) is absent, though duly served.

10. According to Shri Pangam what is awarded as compensation is only a token amount which is not at all just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has relied upon "Fakkirappa v/s. Yallawwa and another" (2004 ACJ 1141), wherein the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has discussed the principles and norms governing the determination of compensation, in bodily injury cases. Their lordships of the Kamataka High Court have observed that in deciding the quantum of damages to be paid to a person for the persona] injury suffered by him, the Court is bound to ascertain all considerations which will make good, to the sufferer of the injuries, as far as money can do, the loss which he has suffered as a natural consequence of the wrong done to him. It has been held that the damages must be full and adequate. "Phillips v. South Western Railway Company", (1871) 1 QBD 106, has been relied upon, wherein it has been held:

"You canno

Click Here to Read the rest of this document