The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of justice, equity, and good conscience in awarding just and reasonable compensation for bodily injuries, emphasizing the need to consider all relevant circumstances, evidence, and legal principles governing the quantification of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 18.4.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) and Presiding Officer, F.T.C. No.12, Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1603 of 1995, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.1,01,400/- towards compensation to the appellant, the appellant has filed present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are as under:-

2.1 The appellant, on the day of accident has proceeded from Vaghodiya to Kagdapura and she was standing near new Aaramgruh. Thereafter, she was traveling in bus of Gujarat State Road and Transport Corporation. However, the bus in which she was travelling was not proceeded towards Kagdapura. Therefore, conductor stopped the bus and while the appellant was got down from the bus and that relevant point of time, the driver of the offending S.T. bus has without taking any proper care and due diligence driven the bus in negligent manner. Due to this she fall down from the bus and sustained injuries and admitted to the S.S.G. Hospital. Therefore she has filed claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) and Presiding Officer, F.T.C. No.12, Vadodara being M.A.C.P. No.1603 of 1995 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.1,01,400/- towards compensation to the appellant.

2.2 Hence, present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

3. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly calculated the disability and future prospects of the lady in light of the injury sustained by the lady. It is also further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered 40% negligency on the part of the original claimant. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly awarded the amount under the head of pain shock and suffering and under the head of attendant charges and under the head of special diet and loss of amenities.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. I have also gone through the record and proceedings. Though, twice notice came to be served to the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, the corporation has chosen not to appear in person nor engaged the advocate and therefore, in absence of corporation, present appeal is required to be decided, since the appeal is pending from 2008 i.e. more than 14 years and S.T. corporation has not taken pain to engage any advocate nor personally remained present before this Court.

5. Considering the fact that the accident took place on 5.5.1995, while the injured applicant was got down from the bus and at that relevant point of time, the driver of the offending S.T. bus has without taking any proper care and due diligence driven the bus in negligent manner and because of that the appellant injured sustained serious injury on his body. She remained as indoor patient for quite long time. There were 3 to 4 operations had been performed for different purpose including the skin grafting from one leg to another leg. It appears that the Tribunal has considered 30% permanent partial disablement.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in case of Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2013 (8) SCC 389 and submitted that it is well-settled principle that in granting compensation for personal, injury, the injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages.

7. I have heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant and considered the material available on record of the appeal.

8. It appears that the decision on which learned advocate for the appellant has p