The court reinforced the principle that compensation awarded should aim to restore the injured to their pre-accident position and stressed accurate assessment of future earnings based on permanent disability.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein the Appellant has challenged the award dated 15.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MAC Petition no. 692/10 titled as Pankaj Malhotra v. Mohd. Nazim & Ors. ("impugned award").

2. The learned Claims Tribunal vide the impugned Award held that the Appellant herein was liable to pay compensation to Respondent No. 1 as the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Appellant and the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving license. Furthermore, the Appellant did not have any other statutory defence to offer. The relief granted by the learned Claims Tribunal is as under:

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. On the unfortunate day of the accident, i.e. 20.12.2008, Respondent No. 1 was driving motorcycle No. DL 4S BC 6419 and was proceeding towards his house from Qutub Garh, Delhi. Shri Puran Mandal was riding pillion along with him. While travelling on the main road near Kanjhawala, Respondent No. 1 was hit by the offending vehicle no. HR 55A 2615, which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The aforesaid vehicle collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the forceful impact of the collision, Respondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries. It is pertinent to note that an FIR was registered in respect of this accident at Police Station Kanjhawala, Delhi vide FIR No. 692/10, under sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 was admitted into Brahm Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar, Delhi, where appropriate treatment was given to him from 20.12.2008 to 24.12.2008. Even after getting discharged, he used to visit the hospital for routine check-up as per the advice of doctors. Since he had sustained serious crush injuries on his left hand, he again had to remain hospitalized for periods 01.01.2009 to 03.01.2009, 12.01.2009 to 15.01.2009 and 24.02.2009 to 25.02.2009. After discharge, he was advised by the doctors to undergo physiotherapy treatment for a period of nine months. This treatment record and medical bills have been proved by Respondent No. 1 as Ex. PW2/l & Ex. PW2/2.

5. It is pertinent to note that the permanent disability sustained by Respondent No. 1 with respect to his left upper limb was assessed at 43%. The same has been proved on record as Ex. PW5/A by PW5, Dr. S.K. Sharma, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Delhi.

6. Subsequent to these events, a claim petition was filed by Respondent No. 1 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein he claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The compensation claimed was to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization against the driver (Respon