The judgment emphasizes the necessity for just compensation reflecting both the severity of injuries and the lifelong impacts on the victim's earning potential and dignity.

JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

The present appeal has been filed by claimant-Sunil Kumar @ Shina, thereby, questioning the adequacy of the compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of injuries sustained by him, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 25.01.2010.

2. On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, it was held by learned Tribunal that accident had taken place, on account of rash and negligent driving of Utility Mahindra bearing registration No.HR-01H-2521, driven by respondent No.1-Hanuman Singh. Also, it was held that Sunil Kumar @ Shina had sustained injuries, in the accident in question, which resulted in amputation of his right arm and right leg. Thereupon, learned Tribunal, while considering the evidence, brought on record, had awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.25,000/-, on account of 'pain and suffering and special diet'. On account of medical bills, proved in evidence, the compensation awarded was Rs.1,22,392/-. Considering the disability certificate Ex.P30, which states about the extent of disability to be 100%, another amount of Rs.2 lakh was awarded. Besides the same, considering the fact of amputation of right arm and right leg just below knee and also taking into consideration, the requirement of artificial limb to carry out the routine, another amount of Rs.2 lakh was granted. In total, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal was Rs.5,47,392/-. The liability was held to be joint and several of the respondents, in the capacity of being driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. Suffice to consider that none of the respondents, upon whom, the liability was fastened, as such, have challenged the Award.

4. Be it noted that it is only the appellant-claimant, who had sought enhancement of the compensation.

Learned counsel for the parties heard.

5. As noted aforesaid, the 'work on' of the compensation, do call for re-computation.

6. The appellant-claimant, while himself stepping into witness box as PW-3 has deposed about the manner of taking place of the accident and also imputed rashness and negligence, on the part of respondent No.1-Hanuman Singh. Besides the same, he has also deposed about the detail of the injuries suffered by him, in the accident in question and further deposed about the detail of the treatment undergone by him, in various hospitals. He also deposed about amputation of his right arm from shoulder as well as right leg, just below knee.

7. Even various doctors have been examined, vis-a-vis, treatment undergone by the appellant-claimant. PW-5 Dr.Lokesh Kumar, Medical Officer, CMC Hospital, has deposed about initial admission of the claimant, in their hospital. He proved the bed head ticket Ex.P32, photocopy of MLR Ex.P33, hospital bill Ex.P34 and photocopy of police information Ex.P35. PW-6 Dr.Parveen Chawla, Chawla Nursing Home, Dabra Chowk, has also deposed about admission of Sunil @ Shina on 27.01.2010, in his nursing home, with crushed right upper and lower limb, allegedly sustained in road side accident, which was amputated. He further deposed that claimant remained in their hospital from 27.01.2010 to 11.02.2010 and proved bills Ex.P36 as well as Ex.P37 and bed head ticket Ex.P38. He also deposed that patient will need artificial limb.

8. PW-7 Dr.Joginder Singh, SMO, deposed about being member of the board, who had examined the claimant for assessment of the disability, which was found to be to the extent of 100%, on account of amputation of right upper limb at shoulder and amputation of right leg.

9. Thus, from the evidence, it stands amply established that as a result of injuries sustained, in the accident in question, the appellant claimant had amputation of right arm from shoulder as well as right leg below knee. In the light of the aforesaid, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is too meagre an amount.

10. In this regard, beneficial reference is made to Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009