The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for just and reasonable compensation in motor accident claims, taking into account all elements that would place the victim in a position as close as possible to their pre-accident state, including the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity, loss of future income, loss of life expectation, and pain and suffering.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the claimant") has challenged the judgment and award dtd. 11/11/2016 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.9 of 2011 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati (herein after referred to as "the Tribunal"). By the impugned judgment the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,06,000.00 with interest 7.25% per annum from the date of the application till final realization.

2. The brief facts necessary to decide the appeal are as under: The claimant, who was 28 years of age had sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident involving bus bearing MH-31-AP9063 owned by the respondent no.1-Maharashtra State Transport Corporation (MSRTC). The claimant alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the said bus. The injures sustained in the accident has resulted in permanent disablement. The claimant alleged that prior to the accident he was employed as an agricultural labourer and was earning Rs.150.00 to Rs.200.00 per day. The claimant further alleged the that he is unable to work as a result of amputation of his right knee. The claimant alleged that he is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,35,000.00 but restricted his claim to Rs.1,00,000.00.

3. The respondent no.1 denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent no.1 also denied that the injuries sustained in the accident had affected earning capacity of the claimant.

4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has also observed that the claimant had sustained permanent disablement to the extent of 80%. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not produced any document to prove his monthly or annual income and hence computed the loss of earning on the basis of notional income of Rs.3,000.00 per month. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs.11,400.00 towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000.00 towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has thus awarded total compensation of Rs.5,06,000.00. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the claimant has filed this appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. Ms Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, submits that claimant was a young man of 28 years of age and was working as an agricultural labourer and earning of Rs.150.00 to Rs.200.00 per day. She contends that the claimant was earning Rs.6,000.00 per month and hence the Tribunal has erred in computing the loss of earning on the basis of notional income of Rs.3,000.00. She further submits that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that amputation of right leg above knee has affected earning capacity of the claimant. She further submits that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is also very meager. She submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. In support of her contentions, she relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jagdish Vs. Mohand and others reported in 2018(4) SCC 571, Erudhya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 4284 and Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others reported in 2012 AIR (Supreme Court) 782: 2012(2) SCC 267.

6. Per contra, Ms Bhagyashri Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that accident was caused in the year 2010. The claimant had not produced any documentary evidence to prove his income. She further contends that the Tribunal has rightly computed the loss of earning on the basis of notional income of Rs.3,000.00 per month, which was minimum wage payable in the year 2013. She contends that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and impugned judgment and award does not warrant any interference.

7. I have perused the record and considered submissions advanced by lea