The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for just and realistic compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the impact of permanent disability on the claimant's earning capacity and quality of life.

JUDGMENT

anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 21.02.2012, passed by the Court of Motor accident Claims Tribunal (additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1), Bharatpur (for short 'Tribunal') in Civil Misc. (MaC) Case No.266/2004, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,22,950/- to the claimant-appellant.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing both the sides, decided the claim petition of the claimant-appellant and awarded compensation of Rs.5,22,950/- under various heads in favour of the appellant-claimant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant has sustained 83.2 percent permanent disability and his age was about 45 years on the date of the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant-appellant remained admitted in hospital for 152 days. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the disability of the claimant as 60% without any basis simply by saying that the Doctor was not examined. Learned counsel further argued that when disability certificate issued by the medical board of three Doctors was available on the record, there was no need to examine the doctor to prove the permanent disability certificate.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in Civil Misc. appeal No.3537 of 2018 in "Pappu Saini Vs. Sumer Singh Gurjar & Ors." wherein this Court has held that the Doctor is not required to be examined to prove the permanent disability certificate when the certificate has been issued by the medical board. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly the age of the claimant was 45 years, hence, multiplier of 14 should have been applied, but without any basis, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant was having his own shop and also used to do the business of tours and travelling and because of 83.2 percent permanent disability, he is not able to do his business and daily activities.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Mis. appeal No.4615/2017 in "Leelaram Vs. Deshraj & Ors." decided on 09.12.2021, wherein the injured sustained 90 percent disability and this Court awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life.

7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that as per the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation: (2009) 6 SCC 121, the claimant is also entitled for 25 percent amount of compensation under the head of future prospects.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimant-appellant has rightly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the amount of compensation, in the case after evaluating the evidence available on the record. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment dated 21.02.2012 does not call for any intereference by this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of "Pappu Saini" (supra), "Sarla Verma" (supra) and "Leelaram" (supra).

10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel at Bar and gone through the judgment dated 21.02.2012, as well as the other relevant documents available on the record. It is not in dispute that the claimant was 45 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier of 13 and looking to the age of the claimant, multiplier of