JUDGMENT

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. The appellant through his mother and natural guardian has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [MV Act] assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [Tribunal], in MACP No. 443/2016 and is thereby seeking enhancement of compensation on various grounds.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the appellant who was a boy of 4? years, met with a motor accident on 01.09.2015 involving an Army Truck 2.5 ton bearing registration No. 13C-09289Y [Offending vehicle] being driven by respondent No.1. Suffice to state that the accident resulted in the appellant sustaining prolonged medical treatment and eventually suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90% that resulted in amputation of the left upper limb. Learned Tribunal inter alia held that the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle belonging to the respondents No. 2 and 3 in a rash and negligent manner that resulted in causing injuries to the appellant, which has not been assailed in the present appeal.

3. As pointed out above, the appellant assails the impugned judgment-cum-award insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, which is claimed to be on the lower side. Learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No.2 as to the quantum of compensation referred to the proposition of law decided by the Supreme Court as well as this Court and found that no bills were submitted towards medical treatment, apparently since father of the appellant is an Army Man and the same was taken care of. While deciding the actual and future earnings or pecuniary loss, learned Tribunal relied on decision in the case of Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., 2014(14) SCC 396 and held that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 4,00,000/- for having suffered permanent disability of more than 60%. It would be apposite to reproduce other heads of compensation/itemization that were drawn by the learned Tribunal, which goes as under:-

Loss of actual and future earnings or pecuniary loss:Rs. 4,00,000/-Loss of destruction of prospects of marriage:Rs.1,00,000/-Disfiguration:Rs. 1,00,000/-Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges:Rs.82,000/- (For six months)Total:Rs. 6,82,000/-

4. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs. 6,82,000/- was awarded to the appellant along with an interest of @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition except for providing the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of inquiry, which would be excluded from the above amount and from calculation of the compensation.

5. Needless to state that the liability to pay compensation was fastened jointly and severally on the respondents No.1 and 2 with directions to deposit the entire amount of compensation within 90 days of the judgment, failing which they were made liable to pay penal interest @ 9% for the delayed period.

ANALYSIS & DECISION:

6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties at the Bar and on perusal of the record of the present appeal as also the digitized Trial Court Record, unhesitatingly, this Court finds that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on an extremely lower side and overlooks the various legal parameters which are required to be considered while awarding a just and reasonable compensation. The proposition of law is replete with the judicial policy that the determination of quantum of compensation must be liberal and not done niggardly as the law values life and limb in a free country. The whole position of law was summarized in a decision by the Supreme Court titled Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein the Supreme Court after discussing several case laws on the subject held as under:-

"The heads under which compensatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document