The judgment establishes that compensation for personal injury must reflect actual income, future prospects, and the extent of disability, ensuring just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Nisha M. Thakore, J.

1. The present appeal and the cross-objections are filed by the Insurance company and the original claimants respectively under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 21.03.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad city in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.663 of 2001.

1.1 The original claim petition was preferred by the injured claimant Piyushkumar Pravinchandra Mehta under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.44,55,000/- with proportionate costs and interest which came to be partly allowed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.35,01,700/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization. The opponent nos.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. The Tribunal had also issued further directions with regard to the deposit of award amount and investment of 70% of such amount in any Nationalized bank in the name of the claimants and remaining 30% of the award amount was directed to be paid to the original claimants.

2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised in the present appeal, in nutshell, are as under:-

2.1 On 5th April, 2001 at about 10:30 hours, the original claimant had gone to the Temple of Saibaba. At that time, he was standing with his scooter on the correct side of the road in a stationary position and the engine of the scooter was also off. The opponent no.1 – driver, driving the truck bearing registration no.RJ-19 1G-1752 came from Chitrasani on the wrong side of the road in rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed and thereby dashed with the original claimant. Resultantly, the claimant was dragged by the truck up to the distance of 5 ft. The claimant had sustained serious injuries on various parts of his body. In this regard, a complaint was lodged with Palanpur Taluka Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R. no.52 of 2001.

2.2 The original claimant having sustained damages because of the tortious act of the opponent no.1 – driver of the truck, approached the MACT, Ahmedabad by preferring claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. Such a claim petition was preferred through his wife as the claimant was in an unconscious state and in coma. The claim petition was registered as MACP no.663 of 2001.

2.3 Apart from the driver of the offending truck being joined as opponent no.1, the owner of the truck was also joined as opponent no.2 and since the offending truck was insured, the opponent no.3 was joined as the insurance company of the said truck.

2.4 Before the trial Court, though the summons were duly served upon the opponent nos.1 and 2 – driver and owner of the offending vehicle - truck, they had chosen not to contest the claim petition and hence, ex-parte proceedings were conducted qua them. So far as the opponent no.3 – insurance company of the offending vehicle – truck is concerned, it objected to the claim petition by filing a written statement at Exh.30 denying specifically the averments raised in the claim petition. A separate application was also filed under Section 170 of the Act at Exh.67, which was allowed by the Tribunal.

2.5 Considering the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal had framed issues at Exh.65, the same reads as under:-

1. Whether the applicant proves that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver(s) of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled for the damages? If yes, what amount?

3. What order and award?

Upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal recorded the findings on the above referred issues, as under :

1. In the affirmative.

2. As per final order.

3. As per final order.

2.6 The Tribunal while considering the issue no.1 as regards the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending