Compensation for accident victims must be just and equitable, reflecting long-term impacts, including future medical needs and pain; under-compensation in previous awards is impermissible under statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

This case is a locus classicus wherein the injured-victim has been deprived of just compensation for more than two decades (a total of more than 24 years), awarding of which is the primary objective of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Unfortunately, responsibility for such a delay cannot be fixed on anyone except our system, which requires introspection and self-assesment, to equip itself for making an early decision, especially in the cases which involves painful or sensitive subject matter.

2. Appellant-Gagandeep @ Monti (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimant’) was 16 years old on the worst day of his life i.e. on 18.06.2000, when he was hit by the driver of an offending truck bearing HR-37-A-0921, namely, Sukhbir Singh (respondent No.1), who was driving in a grossly rash and negligent manner. Respondent No.2-Subhash Kumar was the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company with which the said truck was insured. Though not much needs to be discussed but starting with summarized facts may help in advancing justice by taking a compassionate view while awarding the adequate and just amount of compensation, thus, the same are discussed hereinafter in brief.

3. On 18.06.2000, claimant- Gagandeep @ Monti was going from Chandigarh to Dadu Majra on a cycle that was being paddled by one Ajay and when they reached in front of CTU Workshop, a truck bearing Registration No. HR-37-A-0921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) came at a fast speed from the opposite direction and while coming from the wrong side, struck against the cycle. As a result, both the cycle riders fell and the claimant sustained serious injuries, whereafter he was removed to the hospital. Respondents No. 1 and 2 neither appeared before this Court at the time of hearing of the appeal; nor represented themselves before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’)

4. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, material averments raised through the claim petition were denied, and it was pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid Driving License at the time of accident. Thus, an attempt was made to escape from its liability to compensate the claimant.

5. After the pleadings of the parties, learned tribunal framed following issues:

“1. Whether the claimant sustained fracture and other multiple injuries in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while he was driving truck No. HR-37-A-0921. If so, its effect? OPP

2.1f issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled and from whom of the respondents? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not having valid driving license. If so, its effect? OPR.

4. Relief.”

6. In order to prove his case, the claimant examined total five witnesses, which are as follows:-

(i) PW1 - Gagandeep @ Monti (claimant himself), who proved facts narrated in the pleadings and produced the original medical bills as Ex. P1 to Ex. P7 and also stated about the amount spent by him during the treatment. He also deposed that his left foot was crushed and amputated and that he is unable to pass his urine. Further stated that he was unmarried at the time of the accident and was a student. Also stated that after the accident, he was unable to lead normal life and had to discontinue his studies. The discharge cards Ex. P8 to P-12 were also produced.

(ii) PW2 - Dr. A.K. Manda, Department of Neurology, PGI, Chandigarh, appeared and stated that the injured had suffered m