The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to award just compensation under recognized heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in personal injury claims, considering the nature of the claimant's avocation and future prospects in cases of permanent disability.

JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12th October, 2007 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Mumbai (Tribunal) in MACP No. 288 of 1996 whereby the claim of the appellant came to be partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs inclusive of compensation awarded under section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV Act, 1988), along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from 1st January, 2006 rill realization.

2. The background facts leading to this appeal can be stated, in brief, as under:-

a] The appellant/applicant was working as a Loader (Hamal) with Ruby Tempo Transport Services. On 11th May, 1995 the applicant, along with two more loaders, was traveling in a tempo bearing No. MH-04-C-1498, loaded with powder. The said tempo was owned by opponent No. 1 and insured with opponent No. 2-insurer. The tempo was proceeding towards Goregaon. Asif was at the wheel of the said tempo. The applicant and other two loaders were sitting in the cabin. The driver drove the vehicle in an extremely rash and negligent manner, despite caution by the applicant and other loaders. Eventually, on Western Express High Way near Vikhroli Link road, Jogeshwari (E), the driver rammed the tempo into another stationary tempo bearing No. MXU-4139, from behind. The said stationary tempo was loaded with acid. The impact was such that the acid from the said tempo spilled over the applicant, and the applicant sustained severe burn injuries, resulting in loss of 100% vision in the right eye and 90% vision in the left eye. Accident was reported to police and crime was registered against the driver of the offending tempo.

b] The applicant suffered 47% overall disability. Due to loss of vision in both the eyes, the applicant, however, suffered 100% functional disability. The applicant claimed that he was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 1,050/- and was also paid daily allowance (bhatta) of Rs. 25/-. The applicant thus approached the Tribunal with a claim of Rs. 4 lakhs, under section 166 of MV Act, 1988.

c] The opponent No. 1 did not appear despite service of notice. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against opponent No. 1. Opponent No. 2 insurer resisted the application by fling written statement. In addition to the denial of the mode and manner of accident, the negligence attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle, the age, occupation and income of the applicant and the injuries sustained in the accident, a defence of the breach of conditions of insurance was taken on the count that the driver of the vehicle was not having an effective driving license at the time of the accident.

d] The learned Member, Tribunal, after appraisal of the evidence of the applicant Yadunath Naikade (PW.1) and documents tendered for his perusal was persuaded to allow the application holding, inter alia, that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in which the applicant was travelling as a loader and the opponent No. 2 failed to lead evidence and establish that there was breach of conditions of insurance. The Tribunal recorded a fnding that the applicant had sustained 100% loss of vision in the right eye and 90% loss of vision in the left eye. Opining that the applicant thus suffered 100% functional disability, the learned Member awarded compensation under the following heads:

3. As regards the interest on the aforesaid amount, the learned Member was of the view that since the oppone