The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and proper compensation for permanent disability suffered in a motor accident.

JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the original claimant for enhancement in the compensation granted by the tribunal.

2. Present appellant had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.829 of 2012 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad contending that she has suffered permanent disability in accident dated 10.03.2012 in front of Temple of God Rama, near Baba Petrol Pump, Railway Station Road, between Scooty Suzuki Access bearing No.MH-20- BZ-4702 and truck bearing No.CG-07-C-1305. According to the claimant, she was driving the Scooty and her sister was the pillion rider. When they reached near the spot at about 9.00 p.m, they were dashed by the truck from backside. The said accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the truck driver. Applicant got serious injuries whereas her sister after sustaining serious injuries, expired. Applicant was treated in Seth Nandalal Dhoot Hospital, Aurangabad. She has undergone operations. However, she sustained permanent disability. She was assistant professor with Hi-Tech Institute of Technology, Bajaj Nagar, Waluj, Aurangabad getting monthly salary of Rs.38,068/-. She has lost the job because of the accident. The said truck was owned by respondent No.2 and driven by respondent No.1. It was insured with respondent No.3 on the date of the accident. Hence, the compensation has been claimed from all the three respondents jointly and severally.

3. Matter proceeded ex-parte against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3-Insurance company filed written statement and denied all the averments in the petition. It was contended that the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the applicant herself. She was carrying two children on Scooty along with her sister which was against the traffic rules. It is denied that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. The statutory defence has been raised that the driver of the truck had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck on the date of the accident.

4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions issues came to be framed. Only the applicant has laid evidence. Taking into consideration the evidence laid, the learned tribunal has held that the applicant has proved that the accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of respondent No.1-driver of the truck. She has also proved that she has sustained permanent physical disability. The insurance company has failed to prove breach of terms of policy and therefore, all the three respondents are liable to pay compensation to the applicant jointly and severally. Compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- has been awarded together with interest. This amount is challenged and enhancement is sought by the applicant appellant in this appeal.

5. Heard learned Advocates Mr. K.H. Dongare and Mr. V.B. Patil for appellant and learned Advocate Mr. M.R. Deshmukh for respondent No.3-Insurance company. Respondent No.2 was served as per order of this Court dated 18.03.2019. Respondent No.1 was not served.

6. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant/appellant that the learned trial Court though held that applicant has suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 40%, yet, did not consider that there is any loss of income of the applicant. The certificate Exhibit-39 has been duly proved through P.W.-2 Dr. Parmeshwar Jaiswal. When she has suffered functional disability and it has also come on record that now she cannot perform her duties as before, the learned trial Court ought to have granted just compensation by applying multiplier method. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court for not granting compensation, for the loss already sustained and towards future losses, is perverse. The applicant is therefore, claiming compensation of Rs.43,20,941/- and restricted the same to Rs.8,00,000/- for the purpose of Court fees.

7. Learned Advocate appearing for the insurance