The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct assessment of disability and future prospects, and the award of compensation for various heads of damages and expenses under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), the appellant has sought modification of judgment dated 05.08.2013 passed by the learned ADJ-cum-PO, MACT, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MACT No. 418/13/08.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. For the sake of felicity, brief facts, as noted by the Tribunal, are reproduced hereinbelow:

"1. On the unfortunate day of 28.11.2007 the injured/petitioner Sh. Gopi Chand Gupta alongwith his son Sh. Roopak were going on foot and they were proceeding towards their residence at Sector 127, Rohini from Rithala via Japani Park, Sector 11, Rohini. At about 3.09 PM when injured and his son reached at Rithala road near Taxi stand-Japani Park, Sector 11, Rohini then a Tata 407 tempo bearing its registration No. DL 1LC 8217 being driven by the respondent No. 1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently without taking necessary precautions without observing proper look out, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn came from Rithala Metro Station side and suddenly took sharp right turn and violently hit one cyclist and then hit one two wheeler scooterist namely Sh. Govind Lal Wadhwa and then hit the injured petitioner with a great force and dragged him for about 30-40 steps and the stopped after hitting against under ground water storage tank constructed in the park. As a result of this violent impact the injured fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over his body and was removed to Dr Baba Sahab Ambedkar Hospital from the place of accident and after first aid he was referred to Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital and got admitted there. The FIR was registered in respect of this accident vide FIR No. 854/07, PS Prashant Vihar, U/s. 279/338 IPC".

3. After the accident took place, the appellant was assessed at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi by a Medical Board. In the `Certificate for the Persons with Disabilities' issued on 08.07.2009, he was opined to be a case of head injury with right hemiparesis. It was further opined that the appellant was physically disabled/speech disabled, he had suffered 60% permanent (physical/speech) impairment in relation to his body and, his condition was not likely to improve. Re-assessment was not recommended.

4. The appellant preferred an application under Sections 166 & 140 of the Act before the MACT, Delhi for grant of compensation against respondent Nos.1-3, i.e. the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. In his application, the appellant claimed that he was 44 years of age and doing business of selling tailoring material & garments under the name & style of `Roopak Matching Centre'. He further claimed his monthly income to be Rs.8,000/- per month.

The respondents contested the claims of the appellant. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 before the Tribunal, while the contents of the claim petition, including factum of the accident as well as that of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No. 1, were denied, the factum of ownership by respondent No. 2 of the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident was admitted. It was further stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3. Although subsistence of a valid policy from 10.04.2007 to 09.04.2008 was admitted, the liability of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to indemnify respondent No.3/insurer or to pay compensation to the claimants/appellant was denied.

5. On account of the accident, two persons had sustained injuries - the appellant and one Govind Lal Wadhwa. Both filed their respective claim petitions before the Tribunal. Considering the facts of the cases, the Tribunal directed recording of common evidence in the cases, which however were inquired and disposed of vide separate judgment(s).

6. In support of the claim petition, the appellant examined eight witnesses. Injured/Govind Lal Wadhwa and the appellant were