The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident.

1. Heard Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Both the respondents, though duly served after admission of the appeal, are absent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.10.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Salcete at Margao (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 15/2007.

3. The appellant was the claimant, whereas respondent no. 1 was driver as well as the owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with the respondent no. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

4. The claimant had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident.

5. The case of the claimant was as follows:-

On 24.10.2006, at about 2:00 p.m., the claimant was riding the motor cycle bearing registration no. GA-08/D-5771 on the road going from Nessai to Margao, from the left side of the road and at a slow speed when Maruti car bearing registration no. GA-02-J-7822 driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a fast speed came from opposite direction on wrong side of the road and dashed against the claimant and his motorcycle thereby, causing injuries to the claimant and damages to the motorcycle. The claimant received serious head injury and also injuries to his right leg and was rushed to Hospicio hospital at Margao and thereafter, shifted to Apollo Victor hospital. There he was operated upon. The accident caused permanent disability to the claimant. The claimant who was only 27 years old and working with Leo's Silk Emporium, Colva, Betalbatim Road, Betalbatim as Purchase Assistant and earning Rs. 7,000/- per month, had to give up the said work and continue with the treatment.

6. The respondent no. 1 did not contest. The respondent no. 2, in its written statement, stated that the car driven by respondent no. 1 was not involved in the accident and that the claimant neither sustained any injuries nor any permanent disability on account of the accident. The respondent no. 2 specifically denied all the averments made by the claimant, in the petition.

7. Accordingly, issues were framed by the learned M.A.C.T. The claimant examined himself as AW-1; Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, the alleged employer, as AW-2; Dr. Roopa Naik as AW-3; Dr. Shivanand Bandekar as AW-4; Dr. Amey Velingkar as AW-5; and Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, an eye witness, as AW-6.

8. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car no. GA-02/J-7822 by the respondent no. 1, due to which he gave dash to the motorcycle of the claimant and caused injuries to him. The learned M.A.C.T. further held that the claimant sustained multiple fracture injury including amputation of toes resulting into permanent disability of 5%. The learned M.A.C.T. found that the claimant was 27 years and held that at the relevant time his income could be taken to be Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned M.A.C.T. held that the claimant was entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.1,36,850/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the application till the date of the award and further interest at the same rate in case the amount is not paid within a month from the date of the award till payment. The amount paid to the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been ordered to be adjusted against the final compensation. The claimant, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, has filed this appeal, praying for enhancement of the same.

9. Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant urged that the claim was for Rs.6,00,000/- and there was amputation of three middle toes of the right foot of the claimant and Dr. Amey Velingkar (AW-5) has s