The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle of fair and just compensation for motor vehicle accidents, focusing on restoring the claimant to their pre-accident position in a fair, equitable, and reasonable manner.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since both the cross appeals, aforetitled trace the genesis to same motor vehicular accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by virtue of this common judgment.

2. Challenge in these appeals has been thrown to an award dated 30.11.2019, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kupwara (“Tribunal”, for short) in claim petition titled "Attiqa Bano vs. Nazir Ahmad Malik & Ors., vide which, the Appellant-Insurance Company has been saddled with liability to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.5,45,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

3. Before the grounds urged in the appeals are adverted to, it shall be apt to have a closer look at the background facts of the case.

4. On 20.10.2006, the appellant (in Mac App No. 69/2021, hereinafter referred to as the “claimant”), a girl student of 28 years of age, on the National Highway at Trehgam Bazar near Ziyarat, Pangar Baba Sahib, was hit by a tanker bearing Registration No. 8295/JK02, being driven by its driver, namely, Nazir Ahmad Malik, as a result whereof, she sustained grievous injuries, resulting in the fracture of her right leg and foot. A claim petition came to be preferred, by the claimant, in terms of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (MVA), before learned Tribunal, inter alia on the grounds that as a result of accident, she was permanently disabled. It was averred that besides helping in the household work, she was pursuing higher studies after qualifying graduation. The injured was stated to be shifted to Bone &Joint Hospital, Srinagar, where she was admitted for a couple of days. The accident was registered with Police Station Trehgam in the shape of FIR No.133/2006 under Sections 279/337 RPC.

5. The owner of the offending vehicle, M/S Surinder Singh Company, did not choose to appear before the Tribunal and was proceeded ex-parte. The claim was resisted by rest of the respondents including the driver and the Insurance Company. However, after filing their respective objections to the claim petition, they also chose not to contest the claim petition and were proceeded ex-parte.

6. The Appellant-Insurance Company had resisted the claim on the predominant premise that driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, was not holding a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On the other hand, the respondent-Driver has contended that he was holding a valid driving license at the time of accident and that he has been acquitted of the charges, in the criminal case, by the competent court of law. Since all the respondents had been set ex-parte, the claimant was called upon to produce evidence in support of the petition. The claimant besides appearing herself, examined PWs Abdul Gaffar Wani and Dr. Abdul Khaliq Sheikh, Consultant Surgeon in support of the claim petition.

7. The claimant testified in her statement that she sustained serious injuries in the accident caused by the offending vehicle on 20.10.2006, which was being driven by respondent-Driver. She was shifted to Trehgam Hopital and later to Kupwara hospital, wherefrom, she was referred to Bone & Joint Hospital, Srinagar for treatment. She remained admitted for 4/5 days in the said hospital and spent around Rs.1,00,000/- on her treatment. She was 22 years of age at the time of accident and sustained 50% disability. She also stated that she was studying but her study was affected due to accident. PW-Abdul Gaffar Wani also toed the same line by stating that claimant sustained 50% disability, incurred Rs.1,00,000/- on her treatment and she was 22 years of age. He also stated that right leg and foot of the claimant was fractured in the accident. PW-Abdul Khaliq Sheikh, Consultant Surgeon, has admitted the disability certificate issued by him and deposed that disability of 50% mentioned in the first disability certificate dated 12.02.2007, had gone down to 40%, which was reflecte