The main legal point established in the judgment is that compensation in motor accident claims should be 'justly' determined, taking into account the impact of disability on the income generating capacity of the claimant, and recognizing the intrinsic value of human life and dignity through compensatory awards.

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the motor accident claim, following the serious injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant, on 09.09.2006, on account of rashness and negligence, on the part of respondent No.1-Manjit Singh, while driving bus bearing registration No.CH-01-G1-5920.

2. On appraisal of the evidence adduced, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.13,50,000/- to the appellant.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant for seeking compensation under several heads, where no amount has been awarded by learned Tribunal and also for enhancement of the amount awarded by learned Tribunal, under different heads.

4. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that so far as fact of accident and manner of taking place of the same as well as the liability of the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle to be joint and several, are concerned, no appeal, as such, has been filed by the persons, who had been made liable, to challenge the Award and thus, the finding so arrived, has attained finality.

5. It is only an appeal, filed by the injured-claimant for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

6. The appellant-claimant Savita Gulati, on the fateful day i.e. 09.09.2006, suffered serious injuries, resulting into permanent disability to the extent of 83% of the whole body.

7. At first instance, disability was assessed and disability certificate, Ex.PW7/A was proved by way of examination of Dr.Dhiraj Khurana, who stepped into witness box as PW-7, who was the member of the Medical Board, which assessed the disability. The said certificate Ex.PW7/A reveals about the appellant to be a case of ‘Road Side Accident with hypoxic ischemic brain injury’ and she had suffered 83%, impairment, in relation to her whole body. However, further note was given in the said certificate, whereby, reassessment was recommended, after a period of five years. This disability certificate is dated 25.09.2009. As such, at the time, when the claim petition was decided vide impugned Award, the period of five years had not lapsed and consequently, this disability certificate was taken into consideration. Thereafter, during the pendency of the present appeal bearing FAO-7224-2010, fresh disability was assessed and by way of additional evidence, fresh disability certificate has come on record. Perusal of the same reveals that the appellant-claimant has been assessed to be a case of Multiple Disability. Further, it has been observed that the diagnosis in her case is ‘Old case of Road side accident with Quadri-paresis due to Hypoxic brain injury and fracture S/T Right with implants in situ, with Ataxia and Dysarthria. Disability 83% in relation to whole Body. (Permanent). Further, it was observed that she has 83% (in figure) Eighty Three percent (in words) Permanent Disability in relation to her Brain, WHOLE BODY.

8. To so substantiate, the nature and kind of injuries, so suffered and the manner of treatment, besides, father of the appellant, stepping into witness box, as PW-5 and tendering his affidavit as Ex.PW5/A, various doctors, as such, have also been examined.

9. Firstly, PW-1 Dr.Anjali Arora, MO General Hospital, who deposed about patient to have been examined on 09.09.2006 and also further deposed about the detail of the injuries and she proved her report Ex.PW1/A.

10. PW-2 Vinod Kumar, Store Keeper of Alchemist Hospital, Panchkula, also deposed about appellant Savita, to have remained admitted in their hospital for treatment w.e.f. 04.10.2006 to 13.10.2006 and he proved the treatment card, which is Ex.PW2/A and the bill issued by their hospital is Ex.PW2/B.

11. PW-3 Dr.Rohit Sharma, Senior Resident, Department of Orthopedics, GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh, also deposed about admission of the appellant-claimant in their hospital w.e.f. 09.09.2006 till 1