The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation for motor vehicle accident victims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering income estimation, future prospects, and functional disability.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/claimant to seek modification of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Claims Tribunal") vide the Award dated 03.10.2012 ("impugned Award") in Claim Petition No. 691/10 titled as Shiv Kali @ Bharti v. Shyam Narayan Yadav & Anr.

2. Vide the Impugned Award, the Appellant was awarded an amount of Rs.5,24,000/- as compensation towards the injuries sustained by her in an accident, with an interest @ 9% per annum against claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, from the date of filing of the suit till the payment is made by respondent No.3/Insurance Company - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., with accrued interest thereon.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL

3. Facts of the matter as recorded by learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned Award are as follow:

"2. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that on 18.09.06 at about 3.30 AM, the petitioner alongwith family and 15 workers who were employed with Gurubax Company was coming from Bidholi, Dehradun to Saket, New Delhi on a light goods vehicle bearing no. DL-1LE-6568. When she reached Khirki, Saket near Press Enclave Road and was unloading her household articles which she had brought from Dehradun, all of a sudden, the respondent no. 1 drove the vehicle. As a result thereof, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. She was taken to AIIMS where her MLC was prepared. A case was registered vide FIR No. 1098/06 at Police Station Malviya Nagar. She was 37 years of age. She was beldar. She used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. It was stated that respondent no. 2 was owner of the offending vehicle and it was insured with respondent no. 3."

4. Appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act") for claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the injuries sustained by her during the accident involving vehicle being driven by Respondent no. 1 at the time of accident.

5. Respondents in order to counter the claims made by the Appellant, filed their respective Written Statements wherein it was stated that the accident and consequent injuries to the Appellant were caused due to negligence of her own. Respondent no. 3, the Insurance Company also filed its Written Statement wherein it denied the liability to compensate the Appellant/claimant, however, it was admitted that the Respondent no.2 i.e., the owner of the vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 271600/31/2007/863 which had its validity period from 30.07.2006 to 29.07.2007. It was further stated by Respondent no. 3 that the driver of the said vehicle (Respondent no.1) was driving the vehicle without a valid driving license at the time of the accident.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, learned Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for the adjudication:

"1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the road accident on 18.09.2006 at Press Enclave Road near Modi Hospital due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. DL-1LE-6568 by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3 ?

2. To what amount the petitioner is entitled and from whom?

3. Relief."

7. The Appellant/claimant appeared as a witness and tendered her affidavit as Ex. PW1/A while relying upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/29. Sh. Radhey was also examined as an eyewitness to the said accident as PW2. On the other hand, Respondent no.3 in its defence examined Sh. Rajpal, Assistant Manager as R3W1.

8. After hearing both the sides, learned Claims Tribunal held that the light goods vehicle bearing no. DL-1LE-6568 was involved in the accident which resulted in injuries to the Appellant/claimant, and the said vehicle was being driven by the Respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Learned Claims Tribunal further granted compensation to the Appell