IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the assessment of disability and loss of earning capacity should consider the nature of the claimant's occupation, prevailing wage structures, and medical evidence to determine fair compensation.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is under Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') has been filed by the appellant/claimant being aggrieved by the award dated 05.09.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.114/2016.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 15.03.2016, the appellant/claimant was traveling in her relative's Maruti car bearing registration No. CG 17 KF/1910 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') along with other family members. When they were returning back from Village Dashapal to their Village Bade Arapur. On the way, near Morenga Petrol Pump, an unknown vehicle was coming from the front side on the main road, the driver of the said vehicle hit the offending vehicle, due to which non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle lost his control over the vehicle and turned turtle. As a result of which the appellant suffered various grievous injuries on various parts of her body. After the accident, the appellant was admitted to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur for treatment. After that she was admitted to Shri Balaji Hospital, Raipur for better treatment, wherein she treated and suffered permanent disability. Thus, accident was reported to the Police Station- Parpa based upon which crime was registered against non-applicant No.1.

3. Appellant/Claimant filed an application under Section 166/140 of the Act, 1988 Amendment 1994 before the Tribunal seeking amount of Rs.16,20,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident, she was working as 'labourer' and earning Rs.5,000/- per mensem and as of now unable to earn her livelihood.

4. Non-applicant No.1 has submitted reply to the application, denying the averment made in the pleadings and it has been pleaded that the accident did not occur due to negligent driving by him. At the time of accident, he was driving his vehicle in slowly and carefully manner. Suddenly, due to being hit by an unknown vehicle coming from the front side, the offending vehicle went out of control and overturned. He further pleaded that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company, hence, the responsibility of paying the compensation lies with non-applicant No.2.

5. Non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company filed its written statement also denied the averment made in the claim petition. It is specifically pleaded that non-applicant No.1/driver has not presented such document in support of the claim. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was driving without permit fitness. Therefore, driver of the offending vehicle has knowingly violated the conditions of Insurance Policy. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by the respective parties, the Tribunal held that the appellant /claimant suffered grievous injuries and permanently disabled to the extent of 21% due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. Breach of policy condition was found to be proved. From the above discussion, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has been successful in proving her claim against non-applicants. The Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded a sum of Rs.2,35,520/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding very meager amount of compensation in the facts of the case. He further submits that no future prospect is added by the Tribunal. Doctor who examined the claimant has issued disability certificate to the extent of 68.33% (Ex.A-1) but the Tr