The court highlights that compensation for motor accident victims should encompass not just economic loss but also the emotional and social repercussions of permanent disabilities.

JUDGMENT :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. Both the misc. appeals i.e. misc. appeal No. 1999/2020 filed by the claimant-appellant-Kumari Neelam and the misc. Apeal No. 1474/2020 filed by the appellant/non-claimant- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited arise out of common judgment and award dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (Rajasthan) [for short ‘the Tribunal’] in Case No. 93/2019, Kumari Neelam Vs. Jaiprakash Natani & Ors. which pertain substantially to the issue of quantum of compensation, hence they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the injured claimant-Ms. Neelam, along with her friend, was walking from the Polytechnic Campus of the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Uttarakhand towards the IIT Campus. During this time, a vehicle bearing registration number UK-12-A-7878, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, struck the claimant with considerable force, as a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries, and her companion also suffered physical harm. Both individuals were immediately taken to Base Hospital, Srinagar for medical attention.

Subsequently, on the following day, a written report regarding the incident was lodged by the Registrar of the National Institute of Technology, Uttarakhand. Based on this report, the Station House Officer, Police Station Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal, registered an FIR No. 55/2018 for the offences under Sections 279 , 337, and 338 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Following due investigation, a charge sheet (challan) was filed against the driver

3. In connection with this incident, the claimant instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, seeking compensation against the driver, the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company.

4. In the written statements, the owner and driver denied any negligence on the part of the driver and contended that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the insurance company, thereby seeking dismissal of the claim. The insurance company, in its reply, challenged the maintainability of the claim on the ground that the driver was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The insurer further alleged contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and denied the contents of the petition, praying for its dismissal.

5. The claimant in her claim case asserted that she was 21 years of age at the time of the accident and a Third Year B.Tech. Student at the National Institute of Technology, Uttarakhand, which is a renowned institution in the Technical Education.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed five issues and proceeded to record evidence. In support of the claim, the claimant herself appeared as AW-1, produced documentary evidence marked Exhibits 1 to 28. Additionally, Ashwani Kumar, Anjuman Praveen, Shrey Gupta, Shanti Devi, and Hanuman Sahai Meena were examined as AW-2 to AW-6. Notably, no witnesses were got examined by the respondents in rebuttal.

7. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced and submissions made, the Tribunal, by its judgment dated 18.02.2020, adjudicated all issues in favour of the claimant. While holding the respondents jointly and severally liable, the Tribunal procee