The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method, consideration of non-pecuniary heads for compensation, and the determination of just compensation based on legal principles and guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

1. The aggrieved claimant in M.A.C.P. No. 348 of 1997 before M.A.C.T. Ahmednagar impugns the judgment and award dated 25.11.2003, in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The contention of the appellant (original claimant) is that, on 09.06.1996, the he was crossing Solapur-Nagar road. At that time, a truck bearing No. DL-1G/B-1166 gave dash to him causing multiple injuries. He was hospitalized for the period of 75 days; however, part of his foot and left hand from shoulder was required to be amputed. Resultantly he suffered permanent disablement. At the time of accident, he was prosecuting education in primary school i.e. 2nd std. Now, he would lead challenging life. The future prospects and life expectancy have been adversely affected. Hence the claimant had lodged a claim for compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakhs under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 i.e. owner, driver and insurer.

3. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record allowed claim for compensation of Rs. 3,05,000/- vide its judgment and award dated 25.11.2003. The claimant felt aggrieved by the assessment / computation of the compensation amount being grossly inadequate, hence this appeal.

4. Ms. Madhaveshwari Mhase, learned advocate appearing for the claimant would submit that the claimant was aged about 9 years at the time of his accident. At such a tender age, he suffered amputation of left hand and left foot leaving him to lead a miserable life. The anguish and mental agony that has been suffered is apart from the other losses. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court dated. 05.02.2020 delivered in the matter of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 735 of 202000), she would submit that the Tribunal failed to assess ‘just’ compensation looking to the facts of the case. She would submit that the multiplier method is widely accepted and recognized for fixing the compensation amount. Even in cases of death or injury to the child, same method has to be adopted, however, the Tribunal ignoring well-established method prescribed, made assessment on lump-sum basis. She would further submit that considering the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, the compensation towards non-pecuniary heads as awarded by Tribunal cannot be justified. The paltry sum has been awarded towards permanent disability, loss of amenities in life, loss of marriage prospects etc. She would further submit that, compensation granted towards future medical treatment, attendant charges and transportation is meager. She would therefore, urge that to re-determine the compensation in the light of the principles of law as has been laid down by the Supreme Court of India in catena of judgments, specifically, in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors (supra).

5. Mr. M. M. Ambhore, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. He would submit that the accident in question took place in the year 1996. The Tribunal has considered the price index for the particular period and assessed the compensation. He would further submit that in case of death or injury to child uncertainty of life assumes important consideration. Even future prospects of the child cannot be visualized because of tender age. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation based on standard method. He would further point out that the Tribunal has granted compensation towards all the major heads that arises for consideration in claim of injured child. Relying upon the judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh and others vs. National Insurance Company reported in (2020) 7 SCC 256. He would submit that the loss of future prospects cannot be considered in cases of death or injury to child. As such, he supports the assessment of compensation made by the Tribuna