IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation in personal injury cases must adequately reflect the victim's suffering, medical expenses, and future earning capacity, as established by relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. D. D. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Insurance Company.

2. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the Judgment dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Member, MACT (3), Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 2183/2017 awarding Rs.23,80,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Eighty Thousand) only for the injury sustained by the present appellant/claimant in a motor vehicle accident on 07.10.2017.

3. The brief facts of the case is that; the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition for compensation due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 07.10.2017 at about 6:30 AM involving vehicle No. AS-01/HC-6829 (Super Bus), which was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. At the time of the incident, the appellant/claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01/BH-3066 with a pillion rider. The offending vehicle, Super Bus bearing Registration No. AS-01/HC-6829, was travelling in the same direction at a very high speed and in a negligent manner. It collided with the appellant's motorcycle from behind, causing grievous injuries to both the rider and the pillion rider. Subsequently, a case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, Super Bus, at Gorchuk police station vide Gorchuk P.S. Case No. 402/17, registered under Sections 279/338 of IPC.

4. Thereafter, the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In this petition, the appellant named Sri Anjit Borah, owner of the Super Bus; Sri Subhash Prasad, the driver of the Super Bus and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the Super Bus, as opposite party Nos. 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The compensation claimed amounted was Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore) only. However, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the owner and the driver of the Super Bus, did not contest the case, resulting in the case proceeding ex-parte against them.

5. The opposite party No. 3, the insurer of the offending Super Bus/present respondent No. 1, contested the case by filing a written statement. Subsequently, the learned Member, MACT (3), framed issues, recorded the evidence and exhibited documents. After hearing arguments and on perusal of the evidence and documents relied by the parties, a judgment and award was passed awarding compensation of Rs. 23,80,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Eighty Thousand) only, with interest at Rs. 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of evidence on affidavit, i.e., from 02.08.2019, in favor of the present appellant/claimant.

6. The appellant, being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Member, MACT (3), Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 2183/2017, has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the award.

7. Ms. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant presented bills totalling Rs. 10,85,718/- for hospital charges and medicines. However, he was awarded only Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs) only for medicines, hospital charges, including the cost for the attendant, without proper perusal of the bills and documents filed by the appellant. In awarding the compensation, the loss of income for three months was considered, despite the appellant loss his right leg and required reconstruction of his penis. Therefore, the learned trial Court erred in law and facts while assessing the appellant's loss of income.

8. She also submitted that the Trial Court awarded only Rs. 1 lakh as the cost of the artificial limb, without considering that his disability was assessed at 85%. Despite using a modular leg prosthesis (TF) from Ottobock costing Rs. 1,04,884/-, he applied for a knee prosthesis, an automated modular leg for the right leg, to maintain his mobility. In support of this, he presented evidence from PW-3 and exhibited Ext-9, an invoice showing the cost of the modular leg amounting