The court emphasized that compensation must reflect the realities of life and the claimant's permanent disability, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.10,00,400/- to ensure justice.

ORDER :

The present First Appeal is preferred by appellant against the judgment and award delivered by the learned Motors Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxiliary) at Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.452 of 1992 dated 28/4/2000 whereby the learned tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,23,250/- with running interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of proper petition till realization.

2. The short facts of the case are that out of vehicular accident which took place on 18/8/91 at about 12-00 near adve Ashram and on noon way of Gandhi Bridge to Shahpur square. According to the petitioner he was travelling on bicycle on left side of the road at that time the opponent No : 1 come on his scooter from the back side of the petitioner without blowing horn with full speed was driving rashly, negligently and carelessly and had dashed on right side of the petitioner and knocked him. Thereafter he fled away by keeping his scooter at the site of the accident. According to the petitioner he had serious injuries on his both legs, spinal code and due to the injuries, his lower part of the body below the waist was absolutely useless and that he is not in a position to move and thereby his whole life is spoiled. With the description of his physical injuries and present physical problem he is facing compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-is sought and the learned tribunal after considering the evidence on record has awarded compensation as stated in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Darji for the claimant would argue that this is a case of 100% functional disability. He would submit that claimant suffered burst fracture of D12 vertebral body resulted into paraplegia below waist and the lower limb has become deadwood. He would submit that though tribunal has taken Rs.1,250/- as income of the claimant in absence of any documentary evidence, considering the fact that claimant is required to take assistance of some other person through out to his life, the tribunal ought to have taken income on higher side. He would submit that tribunal has not granted loss of future prospect and therefore the same is required to be granted. He would also submit that tribunal has also granted very low amount for attendant charges and not granted any amount under the head of loss of sexual life. He would submit that considering the prolong treatment the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is also required to be granted on higher side.

4.1 By making above submissions, he would submit to allow this appeal and enhance the amount of compensation.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr.Parikh for the insurance company would submit that tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income at Rs.1,250/- as compared to the minimum wage in the year 1991. He would submit that accident took place in year 1991 and judgment is delivered in year 2000 and thus the amount granted under the PSS is also proper and thus just and fair compensation is awarded by the tribunal, this Court may not disturb the judgment and award delivered by the tribunal.

6. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and examined the R & P. It is undisputed that claimant received injuries out of the road accident and remained under the big trauma. Fact of accident is revealed from the FIR and Panchnama drawn post accident is not quarrel issue of occurrence of accident and evidentiary value of thes