The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for just and reasonable compensation in motor accident claims, considering the nature of injuries, age, treatment, and disability sustained by the claimant, as well as the impact of inflation on the compensation amount over the years.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.J. Yagnik for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh for the respondent. Perused the Record and Proceedings.

2. The appellant is a claimant being victim of a road accident. She has claimed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by filing Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 50 of 1989 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Ahmedabad district at Ahmedabad Rural against driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle, which was involved in an accident. By impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2005, the tribunal and 8th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) has awarded an amount of Rs. 78,380/- only and, therefore, appellant has challenged such award for quantum only for remaining amount of Rs. 1,21,620/-.

3. Opponents are driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle in question. However, when they have not challenged the award, there is no issue regarding their liability to pay compensation and, therefore, the only issue which needs to be considered is to the effect that whether tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimant or not.

4. For the purpose, nature of incident and history of litigation is not much material, however, it would be appropriate to recollect the basic information. It is the case of appellant-claimant that on the date of accident i.e. on 14.09.1985 when she was going on her bicycle, near Ghodasar Police Station, one scooter bearing No. GRA-3935 has came in full speed and was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and thereby scooter driver has dashed his scooter with the bicycle of the claimant. Because of such impact, claimant has fallen down from the cycle and received several grievous injuries. The claimant has produced on record all relevant documentary evidence viz. FIR of the incident, panchnama of the place of incident, injury certificate, disability certificate etc. The scrutiny of injury certificate at exhibit 121 makes it clear that petitioner has sustained following injuries:-

"(a) Compound fracture lower end of left femur with separation of epiphysis.

(b) Fracture condyle of It Mandible

(c) Fracture distal end of Radius

(d) Other minor injuries.

She was admitted to L.G. Hospital on 14.9.1985 and discharged on 5.11.1985. She was operated by Dr. Manoj I. Joshi on 24.7.1992 and Dr. V.C. Patel."

The doctor has certified that due to such injuries; she has pain in her knee, leg and thigh, more cold during cloudy weather and she limps while walking. She cannot walk fast, cannot run, cannot walk at a stretch for more than 10 min. She cannot climb stairs properly. She cannot squat & sit cross legged properly. She cannot jump and land on her left foot properly. She cannot stand at a stretch for more than 15-20 minutes. She cannot bend her left knee fully, cannot move her left foot at ankle properly and diminished her sensahours over left leg.

Doctor has also certified that he found following problems being suffered by the victim appellant viz.

(a) Healed STG over popliteal vegion (Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent - State.) side over an area of 6" x 4". Hypoaccthesia over the grattered area.

(b) Tenderness over lower end lt frmar and awund lt. Knee.

(c) Left knee flexion - 0" to 110" flexion.

(d) Left ankle movements: No active dorsiflexion possible, planters flexion as brinak.

(e) Left Toe movements: only flexion is possible active extension of toes not possible at all.

(f) Washing of left thigh by 1-0 c.m. And left leg by 1-0 cm as compared to opposite side. Present power of thigh muscles is grade 4.

(g) Complete loss of dorsiflexor power of left ankle and of extensor power of loss of left foot. This means that there is a foot drop.

(h) Loss of sensahors over outer of left leg and over lateral half of dorsum of left foot.

(i) Body wt. 55 kgs. Average difference between RI and LI scale readings