The court emphasized the principle of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, rejecting inadequate assessments and self-negligence deductions in injury claims.

JUDGMENT :

(J.C. Doshi, J.)

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – original claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.9.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morbi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.291 of 1999.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 That the accident giving rise to the present appeal took place on 4/7/1999 at about 9:30 p.m. in the night when appellant along with one Mr. Jatin Ganatra were proceeding on Bajaj Scooter from Morbi to Rafaleshwar. At the same time, driver of Craine No. M.R.T. 8787 had parked his craine on the road without any signal or indicator and in utter violation of the rules road and the same could not be noticed by the driver of the Bajaj scooter and hence, took place and appelalnt received serious injuries.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the statutory liability caused to the claimant as his left leg was amputed from knee after receiving injuries in the road accident. Moreover, he would submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted 40% future prospect to the claimant, which is required to be granted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680. He would further submit that that the learned Tribunal in case of amputation granted Rs.15000/- towards pain, shock and suffering as compensation, did not grant compensation in regards to loss of amenities of the life and loss of marriage prospective. He would further submit that in nutshell, the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in granting compensation on the lower side. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, UP State Road Transport Corporation rendered in Civil Appeal No.9070-9071 of 2022. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating 30% self negligency of the claimant and deducted amount equal to 30% negligency from the total awarded amount worked out. He would further submit that the claimant was the pillion rider in the scooter and therefore, the issue of negligency would be composite negligency to him and he has a choice to claim compensation from any of the tortfeasor i.e. either from the owner and insurer of the scooter or owner and insurer of the crane. Thus, the learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting amount equal to 30% negligency from the total awarded amount worked out. Upon such submission, he prays to enhance the compensation granted to the complainant.

4. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent – Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. She would further submit that the accident took place in the year 1999 and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken up the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2000/- in absence of any data or the evidence for the income. She would further submit that the claimant has not shown joined other vehicle involved in the road accident. She would further submit that since the accident took place in 1999, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering, attendant etc. Thus, she prays to dismiss the First Appeal.

5. Apt to note that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of Legislation. The concept of just and fair compensation is integral and seminal to the MV Act. The compensation to be awarded under the principle of just and fair compensation to the injured of the road accident or the legal representative/s of the deceased person is based on the principle of fairness, reasonableness and equability. Anguish of the heart or for mental turbulence being consequential result of the road accident cannot be actually compensated, but the quint essentiality lies in adopt