The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the insurer to satisfy the compensation with right of recovery and the assessment of compensation in injury cases based on legal principles established in various Supreme Court decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

1. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award, thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment.

2. Subject matter of these appeals is award, dated 24th August, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. (for short ?the Tribunal?) in M.A.C. Petition No. 41-S/2 of 2008, titled as Sh. Aman versus Sh. Neeraj Dewan and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,48,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award with right of recovery (for short ?the impugned award?).

3. The owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

4. The insurer has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 391 of 2011 on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal.

5. The claimant-injured has also called in question the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 91 of 2012 on the ground of adequacy of compensation.

6. Thus, following points arise for determination in these appeals:

? (i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly directed the insurer to satisfy the impugned award with right of recovery?

(ii) Whether the amount awarded is inadequate?

7. I have gone through the impugned award read with the record and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly directed the insurer to satisfy the impugned award with right of recovery and the awarded amount is adequate for the following reasons:

8. The claimant-injured, who was 23 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as IT Engineer with M/s Ambuja Cement, Darlaghat, became the victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Jitender Kumar, while driving Mahindra Pick Up No. HP-09A-1993, rashly and negligently, on 23rd September, 2007, at about 12.30 A.M., near Summer Hill, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries and suffered 84% permanent disability of right arm. He filed claim petition before the Tribunal and claimed compensation, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

9. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the same on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.

10. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:

?1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Pick-Up No. HP-09A-1993 by respondent No. 2? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-3

4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3

5. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3

6. Whether the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger in the vehicle at the time of accident? OPR-3

7. Relief.?

11. Parties have led evidence.

Issue No. 1:

12. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time and caused the accident, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries. The driver of the offending vehicle has not questioned the said findings, thus, the same have attained finality. However, I have gone through the record and am of the considered view that the claimant-injured had proved by leading evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the same rashly and negligently on 23rd September, 2007, near Summer Hill and caused the accident, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld.

13. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues