The objective assessment of disability, loss of earning capacity, and the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages are crucial in determining compensation for motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellants, National Insurance Company Limited, has impugned in this Appeal the Award dated 20.11.2013, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban (for short 'Tribunal') on a Claim Petition bearing File No. 25/2010 titled Suraj Singh v. Mangal Singh and others, directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,17,200/- along with 7.5% interest per annum throughout its realization, on the grounds mentioned therein.

2. A claim petition, as is apparent from perusal of the file, was filed by respondent no. 1 before the Tribunal on 01st of March, 2010, stating therein that Suraj Singh S/o Shankar Das R/o Ramban, Tehsil and District Ramban, aged 33 years, got injured in an accident, which took place on 22nd of January, 2007 at Thard NHW within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Udhampur, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, bearing Registration No. JK02K5-9885 (Truck), which was insured with Appellant-Insurance Company.

3. Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim before the Tribunal on the ground that the offending vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by its driver in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy, the route permit and the driver was not holding a valid license.

4. The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, framed the following issues for determination of the claim petition, which are:

1. Whether petitioner was permanently disabled as a result of injuries received in a Road Traffic Accident involving offending Vehicle No. JKO2K/ 8995 on 22.01.2007 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 1 under the jurisdiction of Police Station Udhampur? OPP.

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicle Act for the disablement from the respondents? OPP.

3. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven at the time of accident in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and respondent insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner? OPR.

4. Relief?

5. Claimant produced and examined two witnesses before the Tribunal; besides himself. Appellant-Insurance Company has not produced or examined any witness in support of its stand or to rebut the claim.

6. By impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimant/respondent entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 3,17,200/- along with 7.5% interest per annum.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

8. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was being plied without route permit and at the time of accident it was being driven by its driver in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy.

As regards above submission, as may be seen from plain reading of the record on the file as also impugned Award, Issue no. 3 was framed, discussed and decided by the Tribunal. The onus to prove Issue no. 4 was upon appellant Insurance Company, but it has failed to discharge its burden to prove Issue no. 3 and accordingly the same was decided against appellant Insurance Company.

9. Learned counsel for appellant has also stated that the Tribunal erred in passing impugned Award as compensation awarded by it is on higher side. Respondent no. 1 could not lead any documentary evidence in support of his pleadings especially with regard to his income and medical expenses. The Tribunal is said to have erred in holding the income of the respondent no. 1 as Rs. 8000/- per month and has further erred in working out the compensation by taking the disability of respondent no. 1 at 45% when in fact the injury has been of temporary nature and curable. Besides there was no evidence on record before the Tribunal justifying the award. It is further contended that Tribunal was not justified in awarding the interest on future loss of income for the period t