IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of permanent disability and loss of earning capacity in compensation cases under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to assess the impact of the injuries on the appellant's earning capacity and awarded enhanced compensation based on the assessment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award dated 16/02/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (CG). By the impugned award, against claim of Rs.18,70,000/-, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,43,539/- in favour of the appellant/claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 19/10/2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration no.CG.18 D/0630 driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2/insurance company.

2. As per pleadings of the claim application, the appellant/claimant along with his colleague Shiv Kumar and others had gone to Raipur to participate in State level social election. After election, he was returning back from Raipur to village – Kasra sitting in the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1/driver was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed from behind the Trailor which was standing in broken down condition on road side in front of Triveni Dental College, Bilaspur. Due to collision the persons sitting in the Bolero sustained injuries. The appellant/claimant also sustained severe injuries and his neck bone got fractured. Upon report being lodged, Police Station – Chakarbhata registered crime No.317/2014 under Section 338, 304(A) of the IPC and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Magistrate, Bilha. Further pleadings reflect that the appellant/claimant spent huge amount on his treatment in different hospitals, therefore, abovestated compensation was claimed.

3. Respondents No.3 and 4 are the driver and owner of Trailor No.CG 10 C/3013 and respondent no.5 is the insurance company with which the Trailor was insured.

4. The claim application was resisted by respondent No.1/driver and owner on various grounds and it was pleaded that suspension rod of Bolero suddenly broke down due to which, the offending vehicle became uncontrolled and it dashed the Trailor standing on the road side. Respondent No.2 also denied averments of the claim application and stated that it is not liable to pay compensation as the offending vehicle was not insured with it and the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. It was pleaded that ten people were sitting in the offending vehicle and it was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also pleaded that it is a case of contributory negligence. Respondents 3 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte. Respondent no.5 in its written statement pleaded that the incident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle (Bolero). Trailor no.CG 10 C/3013 was parked on the road side in a broke down condition with indicators and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Trailor.

5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant.

6. Issue no.1 was framed with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver or there was involvement of Trailor No.CG 10 C/ 3013 in the accident. This issue was decided against respondent No.1. Other issues were decided in favour of the claimant and abovestated compensation was awarded. Respondent No.2/insurance company was held liable to pay compensation with 6% interest from the date of claim application.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that as a result of the accident, the appellant has become permanently disabled. Permanent disability certificate (Ex.P/1) has been duly proved by Dr. Rajendra Banshariya (AW2). He further submits that the appellant/claimant had appeared before the Medical Board, Baikunthpur and the doctor examined him and found that his cervical spine was broken and there is stiffness in his neck and he is unable to move it. Therefore, the a