The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for just compensation in cases of bodily injury and the assessment of damages for loss of human life or sufferance of physical disablement, especially in cases involving child victims.

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadia was approached by the minor claimant (hereafter the claimant), represented by his father, with a claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act). It was registered as MAC Case No. 391 of 2011. The pleadings therein reveal that consequent to the claimant (aged about 2 years 3 months) being dashed on August 28, 2011 by a truck bearing registration no.WB-53A/1304 (hereafter the said truck), which was being driven rashly and negligently, he sustained severe injury on his right leg and ultimately, to his utter misfortune, had to suffer an amputation at such a tender age. Compensation in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was claimed. By its award dated August 27, 2014, the tribunal decided such application by awarding compensation of Rs. 5,85,000/- to the claimant, to be paid by the insurer of the offending truck being the respondent No. 2 before it (hereafter the insurer) within a month from date failing which such amount would carry interest @ 8% per annum till realization. The claimant, aggrieved by quantification of compensation payable to him, is in appeal before us under section 173 of the Act. The insurer after service of notice objected to the award by filing a cross-objection in the appeal, exercising its right in terms of Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the insurer, it is not liable to pay compensation at all since it was not proved that the said truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

2. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the materials before us, we propose to dispose of the appeal and the cross-objection by this common judgment and order.

3. There can be no doubt that determination of damages for loss of human life or sufferance of physical disablement by a victim of a road accident involving use of a motor vehicle is indeed a difficult task. Such task becomes all the more onerous if the victim is of such a tender age as the claimant, who has suffered amputation of his right leg.

4. The father of the claimant deposed as PW-1. He did not say that he was an eyewitness to the accident. He, however, described the incidents post-accident. The claimant was taken to various hospitals and ultimately at Daffodil Nursing Home, Kolkata, where the right leg of the claimant had to be amputated. An artificial limb was necessary for the claimant's rehabilitation but due to financial stringency the same could not be arranged. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- had already been spent for treatment of the claimant and such treatment was continuing on the date of his deposition. The board of doctors of Nadia District Hospital declared the claimant as 60% orthopaedically handicapped, permanent in nature. He proved all the necessary documents including the police documents as well as medical documents and bills.

5. In course of cross-examination, however, PW-1 said that he "saw the accident" with his own eyes but did not lodge any complaint with the police on the fateful day. The suggestions that he noted the registration number of the said truck subsequently or that no accident took place owing to the fault of the driver of the said truck were denied.

6. The orthopaedic surgeon who was a signatory to the "Disability Certificate" issued in favour of the claimant was PW-2. Such certificate was proved by him and marked "Ext.7". He adduced evidence that he had medically examined the claimant on June 27, 2012 and since it was an amputation case of a young patient he required artificial limb for rehabilitation in normal life.

7. PW-2 categorically denied in cross-examination that he had opined 60% "disablement on the basis of statement of patient and patient party" or that he gave his opinion without consulting "test report". According to him, "I have written 60% disability whic