The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and relevant Supreme Court judgments to determine just compensation for personal injury cases.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. The claimant is a private school teacher. She was walking on the side of the road when a vehicle bearing registration no.SK.01 TR 3193 (Mahindra KUV100), driven by the respondent no.3, came in excessive speed and hit the claimant. As a result, the claimant was thrown 70-80 feet from the place of impact and sustained multiple grievous injuries on 11.03.2016. She was 26 years old at the time of the accident. The claimant was earning a total monthly income of Rs.13,500/- (Rs.8000/- as monthly salary plus Rs.5,500/- from private tuition). She filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Claims Tribunal) seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.24,23,463/- on 06.12.2017 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Written objections were filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, the owner and the Insurance Company respectively. The respondent no.3 the driver of the motor vehicle did not file a counter to the claim petition. The claimant examined herself and her sister Ms. Puja Khilingay to prove the accident; the grievous injuries sustained by her; the period she had to undergo hospitalization and treatment as a result of which she could not join duty. The claimant also examined Ms. Anita Singh, Principal of Sernya English Medium School to prove that she was a teacher and earning a salary. She examined Mr. Ram Chettri to prove that she also give private tuitions and earned additional income. Dr. S.K. Dewan, Associate Professor in the Department of Orthopaedics at Central Referral (Manipal) Hospital, Tadong was examined by the claimant to prove the nature of grievous injuries, the duration of hospitalization and her medical consultation with him even after the hospitalization. The respondent no.1 examined herself as the owner of the vehicle. She proved that the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent no.2 and the policy was subsisting at the time of the accident; the vehicle was well maintained and mechanically fit and that the driver had a valid driving license. The respondent no.2 in its written objection took all possible legal objections and contended that there was no nexus between the accident and the cause of death. The respondent no.2 also denied the facts asserted by the claimant in her claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed was excessive. The respondent no.2 did not lead any evidence. The Claims Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 31.10.2019 however, awarded compensation only to the tune of Rs.5,56,060/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till full and final payment.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal as it had wrongly held that the accident was a “routine personal injury” case and by so doing disentitled the claimant from receiving just compensation under various other heads. Mr. Sudesh Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the Claims Tribunal had been extremely fair and granted compensation wherever entitled to the full extent of claim. Ms. Zola Megi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1 i.e. the owner of the motor vehicle and respondent no.3 i.e. the driver of the motor vehicle submitted that motor vehicle was roadworthy and duly insured. She further submitted that the respondent no.3 was a good driver having a valid driving license.

4. In the claims petition the claimant had claimed the following amounts: