The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for permanent disability in motor accident claims, considering the severity of injuries and disability, and referring to legal principles and case laws to justify the enhanced compensation.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present order shall disposed of FAO No.1815 of 2013 and Cross-Objection No. 135-CI I of 2014 preferred by the Insurance Company and the claimant, respectively, against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, dated 11.12.2012.

2. A brief matrix of the facts necessary for deciding the present appeal and cross-objections are as under.

3. The claimant, namely, Amit Kumar stated in his claim petition that on 29.11.2008 he was going from Ludhiana side to Mundian Kalan on Chandigarh Road on a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-10BY-6654. Tarsem Lal was pillion riding with him. At about 1.15 P.M., when they reached Mundian Khurd, a truck bearing registration No.PB-03H-1215, which was being driven by respondent No.2 herein in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the impact, claimant along with Tarsem Lal fell on the road and received multiple grievous injuries. As the condition of the claimant was serious, he was moved from Kalra Hospital, Jamalpur to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana. The accident was witnessed by Parveen Kumar and Varinder Singh alias Vicky, who were following the claimant on another motorcycle. FIR No.282 dated 30.11.2008 was registered on the statement of Parveen Kumar. It was further stated in the claim petition that the claimant was 23 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as Field Officer in Esstex International, 836, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. It was also stated that the claimant had become totally disabled as a result of the accident.

4. The driver of the vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal and was proceeded against ex-parte. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the truck and the Insurance Company. The owner of the truck, respondent No.3 herein, filed a separate written statement taking a preliminary objection that the claim petition was not maintainable and that he had employed Sarwan Singh, the driver of the vehicle, after taking driving test and further that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. It was also stated in the written statement that a false case has been registered and that no accident actually took place. It was also denied that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 (respondent No.2 herein).

5. The appellant, i.e., Insurance Company also filed a written statement and raised the ground that the driver of the vehicle respondent No.2 herein did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and further that the truck in question did not have a valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of the alleged accident. On merits, the factum of the accident was denied. It was also denied that the claimant had become permanently disabled.

6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, awarded a compensation of Rs.17,93,075/- to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, under the following heads:-

" i) Compensation on account of treatment Rs.2,81,000/-

ii) Special diet Rs.7,500/-

iii) Compensation on account of loss of future Rs.15,12,000/-earnings Total Rs.17,93,075/-"

7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal challenging the award primarily on the ground that it was a case of contributory negligence and that the evidence was completely ignored by the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance Company is also aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant, on the other hand, has filed cross objections dissatisfied with the compensation awarded.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties