The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment of compensation for personal injury should be just and fair, commensurate with the level of sufferings of the victim, and should mitigate the hardships of the victim.

Bansi Lal Bhat, J.

This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 31-10-2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Reasi (for brevity 'Tribunal') in file No. 26/claim petition titled Daleep Singh v. Suresh Padha and others wherein appellant-insurer has been saddled with the liability to pay an amount of Rs. 81,99,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. on the awarded amount as compensation in favour of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Claimant').

2. The facts of the case may be noticed briefly.

3. On 1-8-2009 respondent No. 1-claimant was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. JK14B-1253 being plied by Balbir Singh from Bus Stand Reasi towards Jammu. The motorcycle was hit by an Esteem car bearing registration No. JK02D-5758, allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 3. Claimant sustained serious injuries resulting in amputation of his right leg below knee. He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal against the appellant-insurer and respondents 2 and 3 claiming an amount of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- as compensation under different heads.

4. While respondent No. 3-driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition before the Tribunal, respondent No. 2 owner of the offending vehicle, while admitting the ownership of offending vehicle denied its involvement in the alleged accident. He pleaded that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-insurer and it was being plied by a person having a valid and effective driving licence and being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The appellant-insurer in his objections before the Tribunal, pleaded that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was further pleaded that the accident was caused by negligent driving of offending vehicle in the hands of driver, as such the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The appellant-insurer, however, admitted the factum of offending vehicle being insured with it. Parties joined the following issues:-

"1. Whether petitioner has suffered permanent disability amounting to 80% of his right leg, in a Road Traffic Accident caused due to reckless driving of esteem car bearing JK02D-5758 on 1-8-2009.

2. Whether the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2 without a valid D/L and against the terms of insurance policy?

3. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to, and from whom?

5. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced during inquiry, learned Tribunal awarded compensation totalling Rs. 81,99,000/- in favour of the claimant together with interest computed at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of petition till final realisation of the amount of compensation. The award dated 31-10-2013 passed by the Tribunal has been questioned in the instant appeal on various grounds raised in the memo of appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is not in dispute that the claimant was riding the motorcycle in question plied by one Balbir Singh which was hit by the offending Esteem Car plied by respondent No. 3 in which the claimant sustained serious injuries and fractured his right leg. It is also not in dispute that after his initial treatment in Reasi and Jammu Hospitals, claimant was taken to Amandeep Hospital Amritsar where his leg was amputated. Finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1. based on testimonies of claimant. Motorcycle rider-Balbir Singh and Dr. Madan Gandotra which are not controverted by the appellant-insurer and respondents 2 and 3, to