The court emphasized that compensation must reflect the claimant's functional disability and future medical needs, ensuring just and reasonable recompense under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide Award dated 16.11.1997, on account of the injuries sustained by him, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 12.02.1994.

2. On appraisal of the evidence adduced, learned Tribunal had granted compensation to the extent of Rs.1.5 lakh to the appellant.

3. The essential facts, to be noticed are as follows:-

That, on 12.02.1994, the appellant-claimant along with Sh.Gulshan Arora, Advocate and Sh.K.C.Sharma (respondent No.2) was proceeding to Chandigarh for briefing another lawyer, engaged by respondent No.2, in some civil revision petition. They were travelling in a Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No.PB-08J-0471, belonging to respondent No.2, which was driven by respondent No.1-Vijay Kumar. The appellant-claimant was sitting on the front seat. The driver of the jeep was driving the vehicle at a fast speed and when they reached near village Dahan Kaleran, another vehicle was seen coming from the opposite side and to avoid head-on collision, respondent No.1-driver of the jeep, steered his vehicle towards extreme left side and struck against a stationary trolley, causing injuries to the appellant-claimant, who was taken to hospital. Ultimately, the left eye of the appellant had to be removed, on account of the injuries suffered by him.

4. However, respondents No.1 and 2, in their joint statement, had denied about the accident having caused due to negligence of respondent No.1. Rather, they pleaded that a tractor trolley came from a bye-road all of a sudden, at a turning point and then tractor trolley dashed against the jeep, from the side. The accident, as such, was caused due to the negligence of driver of the tractor trolley and not on account of negligence on the part of respondent No.1, while driving the jeep.

5. The appellant-claimant himself stepped into witness box as PW- 4. Besides, deposing about the factum and manner of taking place of the accident, he had also deposed about the injuries suffered by him and on account of the injury on his eye, there was complete loss of vision. He further deposed about having remained out of practice, during the course of treatment and having incurred expenses of Rs.50,000/- on his treatment. He produced the copies of income tax returns, which are Ex.PD and Ex.PE, thereby showing, that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

6. Furthermore, Sh.Gulshan Arora, Advocate, who was also one of the occupant of the ill-fated jeep, had corroborated the version of the claimant and denied about the tractor trolley, having struck against the jeep, while coming on from the side lane.

7. Apart from aforesaid, even, PW-2 Dr.G.S.Malhi, Rajan Memorial Hospital, Jalandhar, has been examined, who has deposed about having examined claimant Balram Shakti, on 02.05.1994 and found complete loss of vision of left eye and certificate issued by him is Ex.PA. PW-3 E.Rai Singh, CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, on the basis of the record, deposed about the appellant-claimant to have remained admitted in their hospital from 13.02.1994 to 21.02.1994. The hospital charges were Rs.11,746/- for the treatment. Discharge slip is Ex.PB, Ex.PC and Ex.PD are the bills. Ex.PF is the Photostat copy of the bed-head ticket. Both the aforesaid witnesses were not cross-examined.

8. Besides the aforesaid evidence, the disability certificate was also tendered into the evidence, which is Ex.PX.

9. However, no evidence was adduced at the behest of the respondents.

10. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, at the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has assiduously submitted that learned Tribunal, while working upon the compensation, has overlooked the fact of the appellant-claimant being a practising advocate. Learned Tribunal had not considered the extensive use of eyes made by an Advocate, while preparing the cases for presentation in