In determining compensation for victims of accidents, efforts should be made to award adequate compensation not only for physical injury and treatment but also for loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities.

JUDGMENT :

1. Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 26th September 2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag (for short “Tribunal”) on a Claim Petition bearing File no. 43/Claim, titled Salman Bashir v. Farooq Ahmad Bhat and others, directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 11,75,000/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. A claim petition, as is discernible from perusal of the file, was filed by respondent/claimant before the Tribunal on 27th June 2009, averring therein that he got injured on 2nd December 2009 when he was hit by speedy Tata Sumo bearing Registration no. JK03A-7221, owned by respondent no. 2 herein. Objections were filed by appellant Insurance Company. On the basis of pleadings, four issues were framed by the Tribunal. Claimant and appellant Insurance Company led evidence in support of their stand. And the Trial Court after deciding all the issues passed impugned Award.

3. According to learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 11.75 Lakhs as non-involvement of offending vehicle in accident cannot be ruled out as claimants have filed FIR after a period of three months from the date of occurrence. Such a submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company is without any substance. He asserts that it is not proved in evidence that injured has suffered permanent disability because of accident.

4. It is necessary to be borne in mind that claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. The standard of proof in motor accident claims' matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether claimant's version is more likely than not true.

5. As regards disability, the injured, Salman Bashir, has suffered 100% disability. Perusal of Tribunal record reveals that an application was moved by claimant before the Tribunal for referring him to Medical Board for ascertaining quantum of disablement. The reference of claimant to Medical Board was passionately objected by appellant Insurance Company as it maintained that referring of claimant to Medical Board would amount to wastage of precious time of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal rightly allowed application and referred claimant to Medical Board for examination. Permanent disability of 100% has been certified by Medical Board. So, submission of learned counsel for appellant that it has not been proved that injured has suffered permanent disability due to accident, is, unfounded, unbecoming of and is accordingly, rejected.

6. Learned counsel for appellant has also stated that the Tribunal erred in passing impugned Award as compensation awarded by it is on higher side. It is averred that injured was 7th class student of 15 years of age. The Tribunal, without there being any basis, has taken income of injured as Rs. 1250/- per month (i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per annum) notionally and has applied the multiplier of 15. Claimant/respondent no. 1 is said to have not led any documentary evidence in support of his pleadings especially with regard to his income and medical expenses as claimant was a student. It is further contended that Tribunal has not been justified in awarding the interest for the entire period for which the claim petition remained sub judice before it due to the delay caused by respondent no. 1 himself.

7. In respect of above submissions, it may be mentioned here that the Tribunal while de