The court considered the extent of permanent disability, future medical treatment, loss of future income, and pain and suffering in awarding just and adequate compensation to the appellant.

JUDGMENT

R D Dhanuka, J. - By this First Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant (original claimant) has impugned the judgment and award dated 5th April, 2004 partly rejecting the claims made by the appellant. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this First Appeal are as under :-

2. The appellant is the daughter of deceased Milind Dinkar Kulkarni. It was the case of the appellant that on 19th March 1995 about 11.00 a.m. she with her father late Milind and mother Nutan left Kolhapur for going towards Pune by a car bearing registration No.MH-09-P- 1265. The said car was being driven by her father Milind Dinkar Kulkarni who owned the said car. He was driving the said car by left side of the road at a moderate speed by observing rules and regulations of traffic on the road. When the said car reached near the spot of accident, one tanker bearing registration No.09-A-6565 came by opposite side in very fast speed. The driver of the said tanker was driving the said tanker in rash and negligent manner without observing the rules and regulations of the traffic on the road. He could not control the said tanker and by coming to the wrong side of the road, he dashed the said car driven by Milind Dinkar Kulkarni. The said Milind Dinkar Kulkarni (hereinafter referred to as "the said deceased") and the appellant were seriously injured. The driver of the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted by the concerned police station.

3. The appellant was 8 years old and was a student at the time of her accident. The appellant along with her father Milind were firstly taken to Krishna Hospital, Karad and they were admitted in the said hospital for treatment. Her father died due to the injuries sustained by him in the said motor accident. The appellant was subsequently shifted to Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune and was operated and treated at the said clinic as indoor patient from 20th March 1995 to 25th April 1995 by the Specialist Doctors.

4. It was the case of the appellant that her relatives were required to contact the specialist doctors in Mumbai and other cities in India for consulting and for giving their opinion and proper treatment to the appellant and spent substantial amount towards telephone charges. Special Nurse-attendant was also required to be appointed by them for taking care of the appellant at the hospital and even after discharge from the hospital for about 14 months were required to spend substantial amount for treatment and various other expenses. She was also required to take special diet for speedy recovery. Her relatives were attending her when she was hospitalized and spent substantial amount towards conveyance, their food and tea. The appellant was required to take treatment of Physiotherapist at Pune from Dr.Bhide and was required to come to Pune twice in a month from Kolhapur along with her mother and one more attendant. She was required to spend Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance. She was required to spend substantial amount under various other heads for taking treatment. She is still suffering from pains.

5. The appellant accordingly filed a claim before the MACT, Satara i.e. Motor Accident Claim Petition No.359 of 1997 against the respondents inter alia praying for an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- with interest thereon. The respondent no.1 though appeared did not file any written statement. The respondent no.2 filed written statement and denied the claims made by the appellant. It was the case of the respondent no.2 that the contention of the respondent no.2 that father of the appellant who was driving the said vehicle was solely responsible and no claim for compensation was payable to the appellant.

6. The Tribunal framed 5 issues for determination. The appellant examined her mother Nutan Kulkarni (PW-1) as one of the witnesses who was cross-examined by the respondent no.2. The said witness produced various documents before the Tribunal. The appellant examined Dr.Prachee Sathe (PW-2) to