The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering the severe limitations and trauma suffered by the victim. The judgment also emphasizes the beneficial construction of the Act's provisions and the importance of ensuring timely disbursement of compensation to claimants.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 12.02.2013 ("impugned award") passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

2. Facts borne out of the records are that on 16.09.2010, the petitioner was coming to his house on foot and at about 07:50 p.m. when he was crossing the road while coming from Sector-4, PNB Apartments, Dwarka and walking towards Sector-3 Neat Matiala Bus Stand, Dwarka, Delhi. All of a sudden, the offending vehicle bearing no. KA-09EA-5202, motorcycle Bajaj pulsar, driven by the Respondent in rash and negligent manner came from Sector-3 Road and hit the petitioner with great force. As a result of the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over his body and fell down on the road. Being physically, mentally and financially affected by the accident, the injured (now deceased) filed a claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.25 lacs.

3. By way of the impugned Award dated 12.02.2013, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,87,196/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount and directed the Insurance Company to pay the entire awarded amount within a period of one month. The learned Claims Tribunal granted the compensation under the following heads:

SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT

4. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Impugned Award is perverse and has been passed without appreciating the principles of law, documents and the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in relying on the testimony of PW-5 and awarding a lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the head `Loss of Wages' as there was no documentary proof placed on record to show that the injured (now deceased) was in service of Rama Steel Tubes Ltd. after 2008. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding a compensation of Rs.1,11,123/- as `Loss of Salary suffered by the daughter' of the injured (now deceased) as she has already received the benefit of leave from her office to take care of her father {the injured (now deceased)}. Learned counsel further contended that the grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head `Attendant Charges' was perverse and tantamount to duplication of compensation as the learned Tribunal has already awarded compensation of Rs.1,11,123/- for the daughter of the petitioner for seeking leave for taking care of her father. Learned counsel further contended that the compensation awarded under the heads `Physiotherapy Charges' and `Attendant Charges' are awarded without documentary proof and are on a higher side. Learned counsel rested his arguments by contending that the compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head `Future treatment' granted by the learned Claims Tribunal needs to be reduced as the injured died in the year 2013 during the pendency of the present appeal.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT

5. Per Contra, Mr. Sanjeev Behl learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 submitted that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned Award. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation based on the uncontroverted evidence adduced by the Respondent. Learned counsel further contended that the injured (now deceased) was