In motor accident claims, compensation must be just and reasonable. Appellate courts are empowered to re-evaluate compensation when the lower forum fails to correctly assess income, ignores future prospects, or neglects non-pecuniary heads like pain and suffering, ensuring the award reflects the actual loss of earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 31.07.2001 passed by MACT, Ambala (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.87 of 23.05.1998 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,97,060/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle bearing No.HP-31-3561 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3.

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

1. Whether the claimant had sustained injuries in an accident caused by Vehicle No.HP-31-3561 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1? OPP

2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled to and from whom?OPP

3. Whether respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation, as alleged? OPR-3.

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.1,97,060/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally.

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 the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle and respondents No.1 to 3 were held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered 30% permanent disability and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,97,060/-, for medical expenses, permanent disability, transportation, loss of income, nutritious diet and attendant charges. Learned counsel further argued that no compensation has been awarded under the head of ‘pain and sufferings’, whereas on account of permanent disability suffered by him, the claimant will suffer ‘loss of income’ in future as well and adequate compensation has not