JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. The appellant-original claimant assails the Judgment and Award in MACP No. 972 of 2001, dated 25th October, 2010 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palghar (Tribunal), on the ground of inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The appeal arises in the backdrop of the following facts:

(a) In the year-1996, the applicant claimed that, he was 39 years of age and dealing in the business of fabrication and civil contractor. He used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. On 17th December, 1996, he was riding a motor cycle bearing No. MH-04-W-2278 in a moderate speed and on the correct side of road, on his way to Mumbai. When he reached near Thermal Power Station, Dahanu road, opposite new guest house, a Tata Sumo bearing No. MH-04-Q-5328 owned by the opponent No. 1 and insured with opponent No. 2 came from the opposite direction in a high speed. The driver of the said jeep drove it in an extremely negligent manner and gave a violent dash to the applicant's motor cycle. Due to the impact, the applicant and Mr. Dilip Amin, the pillion rider, were thrown off the motor cycle. The applicant suffered a compound fracture Tibia (right). It resulted in a permanent partial disability, assessed it 20%. On account of the said disability, the applicant is unable to squat, run, sit cross legged etc. The applicant was made to incur expenses to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- towards medical treatment. Hence, the applicant instituted an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act 1988”).

(b) The application proceeded ex-parte against opponent No. 1- insured.

(c) The opponent No. 2-insurer resisted the claim by filing written statement. All the averments in the application adverse to the interest of the opponent No. 2/insurer were denied. The liability of the insurer to pay the compensation was sought to be contested.

(d) The learned Member of the Tribunal, recorded the evidence of applicant Hareshwar Mistry, PW-1. The documents tendered by the applicant, namely, copy of FIR (Exh.39), spot of accident Panchanama (Exh.40), insurance cover note (Exh.42), medicine bills (Exh.43), Income Tax return acknowledgment (Exh.45) and the disability certificate (Exh.41) were admitted in evidence on behalf of the insurer.

(e) Upon appraisal of the evidence of the applicant and the aforesaid documents, the learned Member was persuaded to record a finding that the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No. MH-04-Q-5328 and the applicant had sustained 20% permanent disability therein. The tribunal went on to award the total compensation of Rs. 70,000/- comprising Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards the disability suffered by the applicant, by the impugned judgment and award dated 25th October, 2010.

(f) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation, the applicant is in appeal.

3. I have heard Mr. Gangal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Chavan the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-insurer. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, I have perused the material on record including the impugned judgment, deposition of the witness and documents.

4. Mr. Gangal, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that the determination of compensation by the tribunal, in the case at hand, suffers from the vice ad hocism and arbitrariness. The learned member of the tribunal, according to Mr. Gangal, committed an error in law in not adhering to the well recognized principles of determination of compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, in the matter of a personal injury claim. It was further submitted that the award of a sum Rs. 50,000/- towards lump sum compensation, without delving into the exercise of deter