JUDGMENT :

[Gaurang Kanth, J.]

1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant to modify the compensation awarded vide the judgment dated 02.02.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”), by the MACT in Suit No. 239/11 titled as Sh. Raj Kumar @ Raju v. Sh. Suraj Mal & Ors. whereby the Appellant was awarded an amount of Rs.56,94,592/- (Rupees Fifty-Six Lakhs Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety-Two only) as compensation with interest @7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition, i.e. 11.03.2011, till notice under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC is given by Respondent No.3/Insurance Company in favor of the Appellant and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.

2. The facts germane to the present appeal as noted by the learned Claims Tribunal are as follows:

“The case of the petitioner is that on 09/10/11 at about 2.45 p.m while the petitioner was alongwith his brother were present near Shri Ram Dharam Kanta, Rohtak Road, Delhi, in the meantime, the offending vehicle, a vehicle bearing No. HR-63B-1175(TATA-407) which was being driven by its driver/ respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. In total, the petitioner have claimed Rs. 1,20,00,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by minor injured in the accident.”

3. It is the case of the Appellant that he was admitted to Jeewan Hospital and later on to other hospitals in New Delhi, where necessary treatment was given to him for about seven months i.e., 09.01.2011 to 01.08.2011. It is further his case that he is still undergoing treatment and the doctors have declared that he has suffered 100% permanent disability. It is pertinent to mention that on account of the accident, and as per the disability certificate (Ex. PW2/1) issued by DDU Hospital, the Appellant has suffered Post Traumatic Fracture D-11-12 Paraplegia Bladder & Bowel inrovement permanent disability of 100% in relation to both lower limbs.

4. Subsequently, the Appellant preferred an application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) praying for compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (One Crore Twenty Lacks only) on various counts before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. It is pertinent to note that at the time of the accident, the Appellant claimed that he was 33 years of age and was running a business in the name of M/s Taniya Plastic at Khasra No.99/22, Swaran Park Extn., Mundka, New Delhi-110041.

5. Written Statement on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was not filed despite opportunities. However, Respondent No.3 filed its written statement denying all the allegations of the Appellant, but it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 as on the date and time of the accident.

6. In support of the claim petition, the Appellant has examined four witnesses. The Appellant examined himself as PW1, Dr. Tarun Solanki as PW-2 who has proved the disability of the Appellant, Sh. Rajkumar Gupta as PW-3, and Sh. Deva Nanand as PW-4 who had brought the record from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital as well as Inderprastha Apollo Hospital. The respondents did not examine any witnesses in their defence.

7. Learned Claims Tribunal decided the issues in favor of the Appellant by holding that he is entitled to get the total compensation from Respondent No.3/Insurance Company jointly and severally with other respondents. The heads in which the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation are as follows: