In computing compensation for a motor vehicle accident victim, the court should consider both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, including medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities of life.

Indira Banerjee, J.

This appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited is against the judgment and award dated 17th August, 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Case Tribunal, 4th Fast Track Court, at Alipore in Motor Accident Claim Case No.102 of 2012 being an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the respondent No.1, Shri Sandip Routh @ Rahul Routh, hereinafter referred to as the respondent claimant, claiming compensation for his permanent disability by reason of an accident involving a Maruti Van bearing registration No. WB42N 8895 owned by one Shyamal Saha, being the respondent No.2, and covered by a policy of insurance issued by the appellant, the National Insurance Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the appellant insurer.

2. It appears that an auto rickshaw in which the claimant respondent was travelling, was hit by the said Maruti Van which was being driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The accident resulted in permanent disability of the claimant respondent, to the extent of 80% as per medical opinion.

3. The claim application was contested by the appellant insurer by filing a written statement. The defence to the claim is summarised herein below in a nutshell :-

(i) Claim was not legally maintainable in its existing form.

(ii) Claimant had not disclosed the number of the auto rickshaw or the name of its owner or other particulars including whether the auto was insured or not.

(iii) Claim case was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties being the owner and insurer of the auto rickshaw.

(iv) In the absence of the owner and the insurer of the auto rickshaw, the question of apportionment of compensation could not be determined.

(v) Claim petition did not disclose particulars of how the accident causing injury of the respondent claimant took place.

4. All the material, averments and/or allegations in the claim petition were denied and/or not admitted and the claimant respondent was put to proof of the same.

5. There is not a whisper of why the claim application was not maintainable in the form in which the same had been made. Since the claimant respondent claimed that the accident had been caused due to the fault of the Maruti Van insured by the appellant insurer, which was being driven recklessly, in high speed and compensation claimed against the owner insurer of the said Maruti Van. The omission to mention the number of the auto rickshaw or the name of its owner was inconsequential. It was immaterial whether the auto rickshaw was insured at all. In any case the owner and the insurer of the auto rickshaw were neither necessary nor proper parties, in the absence of any claim against them.

6. Further more, it is well settled that in case of joint tort, compensation may be claimed from either tortfeasor as held by the Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2015 ACJ 1441. When two or more motor vehicles are responsible for an accident, compensation may be claimed from owner and/or insurer of either vehicle.

7. By the judgment and award under appeal the learned Tribunal awarded the respondent claimant compensation of Rs.24,13,870/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum.

8. The claimant respondent himself gave evidence in the learned Tribunal. He stated that the vehicle in question which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the auto rickshaw while the claimant respondent was paying the fare after getting down from the auto rickshaw.

9. One Ashis Dey, brother-in-law of the victim also corroborated that he had got out of the auto rickshaw and was standing on the footpath and his brother-in-law, the victim of the accident, was paying the fare of the auto rickshaw when the Maruti Van hit the auto rickshaw.

10. As a result of the accident the claimant respondent suffered bone fracture of left femur, head injury and injuries all over his person, as a result of which he became permanently di