The Tribunal cannot award compensation exceeding the amount prescribed in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for claims made under Section 163-A of the Act.

JUDGMENT

R.D. Dhanuka, J. - By this First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant (original opponent no.2) has impugned the judgment and award dated 10th June, 2011 delivered by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as "M.A.C.T., Kolhapur" for short) allowing the Claim Application bearing MACP No. 451 of 2009 filed by the respondent no.1 partly and directing the appellant and the original opponent no.1 to pay compensation of Rs.19,47,100/- jointly and severally within 45 days and in case of default to pay interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing petition till its realization. By consent of the appellant and the respondent no.1, this First Appeal is heard finally. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this First Appeal are as under :-

2. It was the case of the respondent no.1 (original applicant) who was represented through natural guardian that on 13th March, 2009, the respondent no.1 was proceeding from Halondi to Shiye and was traveling in vehicle bearing Tata Magic No.MH09 BB 3176. When the respondent no.1 reached on Pune Bangalore road, within the village Shiroli, Truck bearing registration No.MH 10A 9188 (hereinafter referred to as "the said offending vehicle" for short) was wrongly parked on the road without any indication. The said offending vehicle was obstructing traffic on the road. While taking turn by the said Tata Magic vehicle, the front portion of the said offending vehicle struck against the Tata Magic vehicle in which the respondent no.1 was traveling. The respondent no.1 was seriously injured. He was brought to Adhar Nursing Home, Kolhapur. The local Police also registered Crime bearing No.31/2009 against the driver of the said offending vehicle.

3. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that he was brilliant and courageous student in early childhood and had become paraplegic and has lost his future career due to the said accident. The respondent no.1 is the only son of his parents. He lost his educational career and sportsmanship, lost his marriage prospects and his career came to an end. He was not able to do any routine work. He required an assistance of two persons to help in every work. He became permanently disabled for whole of his life and had become crippled. The respondent no.1 made a claim for Rs.22,52,000/-. During the course of the argument, the respondent no.1 however restricted his claim to Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. In so far as the original opponent no.1 is concerned, matter proceeded ex-parte. The appellant filed its written statement and denied all the allegations made by the respondent no.1 in the said claim application. The appellant however admitted that the said offending vehicle was registered with R.T.O. and was covered under the insurance policy with the appellant. It was also urged by the appellant that the opponent no.1 had committed the breach of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent no.1. It was also the case of the appellant that the driver of the said offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. The owner of the said offending vehicle was not impleaded as a party respondent to the claim application. The claim application was thus bad for non joinder of necessary party.

5. The Tribunal framed four issues for determination. Though the respondent no.1 had made claim for compensation in the sum of Rs.22,50,000/-, the respondent no.1 restricted his claim for amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The father of the respondent no.1 filed his affidavit of evidence before the Tribunal and produced various documents. He was cross-examined by the appellant's advocate. The respondent no.1 also examined Dr. Shailendra Navare to prove that on 19th March, 2009, the respondent no.1 was admitted in Adhar Nursing Home, Kolhapur, to prove the nature of injury suffered by the respondent no.1 in