Legal principle underscores that compensation should be just and reflective of a claimant's lifelong deprivation from injuries, factoring both physical and emotional impacts.

JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–original claimant. against the judgment and award dated 26.04.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Bhuj-Kutch in MACP No.32 of 2014.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for respondent No.1.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of the accident, after offering prayers at Drabudi Temple, the applicant was returning to Village Gundiyari along with her mother, sisters, and other relatives and was walking on the extreme left side of the road on the kacha portion. At about 12:15 p.m., when they reached near the place of the accident, Opponent No. 1 approached from behind driving his Hyundai car bearing Registration No. GJ-12-AE-8489 in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed. He suddenly lost control of the vehicle, causing the car to hit the applicant from behind and drag her for some distance. As a result, the applicant sustained serious injuries and suffered permanent disability.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the documents produced on record and did not correctly assess the income of the victim, who has suffered severe bodily disability. It is further submitted that the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head of loss of marriage prospects, even though the victim, being a minor girl, had to undergo amputation of her right leg. Instead, only a meagre amount of Rs. 8,000/- was awarded under the head of pain, shock, and suffering. It was further contended that the evidence on record, including the certificates issued by the Orthopaedic Surgeon, remained unchallenged. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not considering minimum wages, which ought to have been taken into account, particularly when the right leg had been amputated and the disability was assessed at only 36%. Though the doctor was examined at Exhibit 33, the learned Tribunal ignored this aspect and considered only a notional income of Rs. 24,000/-. It was also submitted that the Tribunal failed to award amounts under the conventional heads, even though the claimant was a minor and had suffered considerable hardship. For these reasons as well, just and proper compensation is required to be awarded under the head of pain, shock, and suffering. Therefore, considering the loss suffered due to her physical disability, interference by this Court is called for for enhancement of the compensation.

5. On the contrary, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It was contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and, therefore, no interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the appeal has been filed on the ground of quantum, and the question of contributory negligence in the case of a minor is not required to be considered. After appreciating the evidence produced on record and relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C. AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwar Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 63