The court emphasized the assessment of compensation for motor accident cases and the liability of insurance companies in such cases.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the award in MACT Case No.357903/16 dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Judge MACT-1 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (hereinafter called as "The Tribunal") whereby the compensation of Rs.20,54,000/- along with simple interest of 9% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing DAR till realization has been awarded to Respondent No.1/Claimant.

2. Facts in brief are that the Claimant on 19.03.2013 at about 1PM to 1:30 PM when he was crossing the road at Anand Parbat, near CNG pump, Military Road, New Delhi a DTC bus bearing registration No.DL-01-PC-7702 (hereinafter called the offending vehicle) being driven by driver Shyam Singh came at fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant-Vinod Kumar. Consequently, he fell down and front wheel of the bus ran over the left leg of claimant. Resultantly, his leg got crushed badly. He was taken to Lady Harding Medical College, Delhi and was admitted vide MLC No.38746/13. Thereafter, he was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on the same day. He remained there for one day. On 20.03.2013, he was shifted to RML Hospital from where he was discharged on 16.06.2013 after 58 days staying in hospital for the treatment. On 19.03.2013. FIR No. 42/13 under Section 279/338 IPC was registered at P.S. Anand Parbat, Delhi.

3. The claimant/Respondent No.1 has claimed that his left leg was imputed and he sustained 80% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. The claimant further alleged that the offending vehicle DTC bus was registered in the name of Delhi Transport Corporation and the same was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation.

4. The driver Respondent no.2 Shyam Singh and Respondent no.3 DTC has filed written statement and denied having any cause of action arisen in favour of the claimant and claimed that accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner.

5. The Appellant herein United India Insurance Company Ltd. has offered a sum of Rs.101,100/- in its reply given as under: -

“Compensation of pain & suffering Rs.25,000/-

Compensation for special-diet. Rs.10,000/-

Compensation for conveyance Rs. 5,000/-

Compensation for medical treatment Rs.39,500/-

Loss of pay for three month

Minimum wages. Rs.21,600/-

Total : Rs. 1,01,100/-”

6. Since legal offer was not accepted by the petitioner, vide order dated 15.10.2013, following issues were framed: -

i. Whether the injured had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 19.03.2013 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Anand Parbat, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1-PC-7702 by Respondent No.1?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

iii. Relief.

7. In support of his claim, petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and he has also examined Kapil Kaushik as PW2, Rakesh Kumar as PW3, Record Clerk of RML Hospital, Pyara Singh as PW4 and Dr. S. Sinha as PW5.

8. Respondents have not led any evidence.

9. Aggrieved from the award dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Ld. Tribunal, appellant has preferred present appeal.

10. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the following grounds: -

i. The appellant in the instant appeal has pointed out that granting of Rs.6,26,800/- with interest is without basis.

ii. The Tribunal has erroneously awarded amount of compensation separately for mental shock (Rs.1,00,000/-), pain and suffering (Rs.1,50,000/-), amenities (Rs. 75,000/-) and disfigurement (Rs.1,00,000/-) even when the different heads are similar.

11. Per contra, learned counsel of the Respondent No.1 has submitted that it is a case of permanent disability of 80% and same should be considered as 100%. On this point, Respondent No.1 has place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rekha Jain v. National Insurance and in Zakir Hussain v. Sabir and has further prays to enhanc