Compensation for personal injury must be just and equitable, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Appellate courts should ensure awards are realistic, applying reasonable estimation for losses where precise evidence is unavailable, to restore the victim to their pre-accident position as far as possible.

JUDGMENT

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This appeal is directed against the Award dated 11.09.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No.7 of 08.09.1997, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.32,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident and respondents No.1 to 3 have been held liable to pay the amount of compensation, jointly and severally.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

1. Whether Balwinder Kaur, claimant received injury on 16-2-1997 in the area of Ajitwal by rash and negligent driving of Bus No.PB-12-B/9501 by Rajinder Singh, respondent No.2? OPA.

2. To what amount, the claimant is entitled and from whom?OPA.

3. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of owner, driver and insurance company of Jeep No.PB-03-B/7421 and that of Mini Bus No.PB-13-B/2424? OPR.

4. Relief.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.32,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by her along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to assessment of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant and, therefore, the entire facts of the case with regard to the manner of accident are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity as the Tribunal has come to the conclusion under issue No.1 that accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2, while driving the offending bus bearing No.PB-12-B-9501, which was owned by respondent No.1. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the appeal as well as the Tribunal has been burnt in a fire incident in the High Court and the appeal in hand shall be decided as per facts and evidence mentioned in the award passed by the Tribunal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.32,000/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. The compensation has not been awarded under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per settled law and the impugned award is thus liable to be enhanced.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

10. The law is well settled that the compensation to be awarded for injuries suffered by the victim in a motor vehicular accident should be just and equitable. Courts have consistently held that while money cannot erase the pain, suffering, or trauma but it is the only legal means to provide restitution and restore the victim to