Court emphasized the necessity for awarding just compensation reflecting future loss of income due to disability, even if the victim retains employment.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 31.01.2013 ("impugned award") passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

2. By way of the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.Rs.2,66,128/- (Two lakhs Sixty Six Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight Rupees) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realisation. All the respondents (respondent No.1(Driver), respondent No.2(Owner) and respondent No.3(Insurance Company) are held jointly and severally liable for compensating the appellant. Respondent no.3/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., was directed to deposit the awarded amount along with the prescribed interest before the learned Claims Tribunal.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. On the unfortunate day of 22.02.2011, the appellant was hit by the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-38 LT-9158 while he was commuting to office by his motorcycle at Krishna Menon Marg, Delhi. As a result of forceful impact of collision, the appellant sustained grievous injuries for which he underwent medical treatment for non-union of clavicle at Max Hospital, Delhi. Appellant was examined by the Medical Board of Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital, New Delhi for ascertainment of disability. Permanent Disability Certificate dated 14.11.2011 stating 56% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb was issued to him and his condition was classified as non-progressive.

4. Mr. Ajay/Respondent no.1 and Mr. Manjeet Singh, Respondent no.2 were identified to be the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively. Thus a claim was raised by appellant before the learned Claims Tribunal where the following issues were framed:

"1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 22.2.2011 at about 12.00 PM at Krishna Menon Marg, Near Kothi No. 6, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.HR-38LT-9158 driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief."

5. Appellant in support of his claims examined (i) Shri Sudhir Gupta, Senior Resident Orthopedics, Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital as PW1; (ii) Shri I.M. Khan, Senior Assistant, Civil Establishment Home, New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) as PW2; (iii) Shri Krishan Pal, Palika Kendra as PW3 and (iv) himself as PW4. On the other hand, Respondent no.3 produced (i) Shri Bishambar, Conductor in DTC but on deputation as Dealing Assistant in the office of RTO, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi as R3W1 and (ii) Shri V.D. Talwar Administrative officer, Insurance Company as R3W2.

6. Upon perusing the records and going through the testimonies of the witnesses, the learned Claims Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the appellant and against all the Respondents. It awarded compensation in favour of the appellant under the following mentioned heads: