Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.

1. Once upon a time, there was a Block Development Officer for Hura Block in the District of Purulia. He took a lift on the scooter of a man who resided within his block. He wanted to go to Lalpur College for an official function from Hura. While travelling to Lalpur from Hura, on the Purulia-Bankura Road, there was a collision between a trailer and the scooter. The trailer was travelling from Purulia side towards Hura. On the Purulia-Bankura road, which runs from West to East, Lalpur precedes Hura if one is travelling from Purulia. As a result, both the scooter driver and the Block Development Officer suffered injuries. However, the injuries suffered by the Block Development Officer were more serious and resulted in amputation of both his legs, one from below the knee and one from above the knee. As a consequence, he was permanently disabled and had to acquire prosthetics. He claimed compensation of Rs. 16 lakhs under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 apart from obtaining an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the Insurance Company which had insured the trailer under Section 140 of the Act of 1988.

2. This claim application was numbered as MAC Case No. 89 of 2000 before the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Cases Tribunal, at Purulia. The Learned Tribunal passed an award dated July 26, 2005 for Rs. 7,50,000/- in favour of the claimant, partially allowing his application. However, the Learned Tribunal by the award apportioned the liability between the company which insured the trailer and the owner-cum-driver of the scooter at Rs. 4,50,000/- (less the amount of Rs. 25,000/- already paid under Section 140 of the Act of 1988) and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively.

3. Being aggrieved the claimant has appealed from the said award. From the memorandum of appeal it appears that the parties to the appeal are the Owner of the Trailer, who is respondent No. 1 and was the opposite party No. 1 in the claim; the Owner-cum-driver of the scooter, who is respondent No. 2 and was the added opposite party No. 1A in the claim; and of course, the insurance company which insured the Trailer, being the respondent No. 3, who was the opposite party No. 2 in the claim.

4. Mr. Banik, Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant, has challenged the award passed by the Learned Tribunal on the grounds which may be summarized as follows: -

(i) The Appellant was entitled to more compensation than was awarded, on the basis of the law settled for such injuries as he suffered.

(ii) The Appellant was entitled to interest on the award from the date he filed the claim application but the Learned Tribunal granted no interest at all.

(iii) The driver of the scooter did not contribute to the accident. He was not negligent. He ought not to have been made liable.

(iv) The Learned Tribunal was not entitled to apportion the award between the joint tort-feasors and direct that payment be made to the Appellant by the joint tort-feasors in the proportion directed by it.

5. Mr. Banik has impeached the following finding of the Learned Tribunal: -

"Considering the facts and circumstances and materials on record I am convinced to hold that the applicant has become crippled and permanent disabled forever and his permanent disability is 100% and he has been leading his life with the help of his artificial limbs and it is also admitted position that he has lost control over his movement and requires an assistance of an attendant no doubt are involves a recurring expenditure and his pain and loss of two limbs cannot be described in words nor his sufferings, frustration etc. and no money can obviously compensate for all these but even the court must have to undertake the exercise in discharge of his duty if only to compensate him to the extent of payment of money and within the laid down framework it is the duty of the court to award compensation and accordingly, for artificial limbs already fixed and also for repairing and maintenance a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- m