The main legal point established is the assessment of compensation for grievous injuries in a vehicular accident, including the residency of the injured, loss of earning capacity, and adequacy of compensation under different heads.

1. Impugned Award of 4th April, 2016 grants compensation of Rs.14,25,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum to Pappu Deo Yadav (hereinafter referred to as Injured), aged 20 years, on account of grievous injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident, which took place on 18th May, 2012.

2. In the above captioned first appeal, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Insurer”) seeks exoneration from paying the compensation awarded. Alternatively, Insurer seeks recovery rights against owner of the vehicle in question, whereas in the above captioned second appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by claimants. Since both the appeals arise out of common impugned Award, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned Award, is as under:-

“Brief facts of the case is that on 18.05.2012 injured was going on a bus bearing number UP-15-F-7372 toward Hapur after paying the fare as one of the passenger of the bus. At about 01.30 pm when he reached at Village Sadikpur, PS-Hafizpur, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, driver of the offending bus bearing number UP-15-F-7372 driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner while trying to overtake from wrong side, zipped the bus whereby scratching other vehicle plying on the road, which caused dent in the bus due to which injured suffered injuries and immediately removed to Dr. Khan’s Rehan hospital and thereafter, AIIMS Trauma Center”

4. To render the impugned Award, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) has relied upon evidence of Injured and as per Disability Certificate of 1st April, 2014 (Ex. PW1/9), the injured had suffered permanent disability of 89% in relation to right upper limb. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has been rendered. The breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal is as under:-

5. Learned counsel for Insurer assails impugned Award on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have not entertained the claim petition, as the Injured was not resident of Delhi. It is submitted that instant case is of contributory negligence as the Injured had struck his hand outside the window and due to his negligence, his right hand had got amputated. Reliance is placed by counsel for Insurer upon Supreme Court’s decision in Anant son of Sidheshwar Dukre Vs. Pratap son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr. 2018 (10) SCALE 130 to submit that in a case of injury, no ‘future prospects’ are to be granted. It is submitted that the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,00,000/- without any basis, to Injured to enable him to obtain artificial limb. It is further submitted by counsel for Insurer that what are the expenses for obtaining artificial limb have not been proved and so, the Insurer is not bound to pay the interest on this amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Lastly, it is submitted by counsel for Insurer that grant of penal interest @12% is unwarranted.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for Injured refutes the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of Insurer and submits that the compensation granted is inadequate. Enhancement of compensation is sought on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in taking the “functional