The court affirmed that a claimant's status as a third party, not a gratuitous passenger, is crucial in determining liability for compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The quantum of compensation amounting to Rs. 91,52,115/- (Rupees ninety one lakhs, fifty two thousand, one hundred and fifteen) only, awarded by the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Namchi, Sikkim (for short, 'MACT'), in MACT Case No.11 of 2019, dated 30-11-2022 (Yoel Subba vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others), is assailed in this instant appeal as being excessive and exorbitant.

2. The facts as per the Respondent No.1 (the Claimant before the Learned MACT) are that, on the midnight of 29-03-2018 he was hit by a Tata Truck, bearing registration no.SK 04 D 0685, near Hotel Cilantro, Bhanjyang Road, Namchi, South Sikkim, upon which he sustained head injury and was rendered unconscious at the spot. He was evacuated to the North Bengal Neuro Centre Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri and was on Ventilator support from 29-03-2018 which was removed on 07-04-2018 after a brain surgery was conducted. That, tracheostomy was done on 14-04-2018 and on 19-04-2018 the Claimant was shifted to the HDU. Due to the accident, he sustained 'head injury with multiple deep seated hemorrhagic contusions with right sided pneumothorax'. Following treatment and prolonged sessions of physiotherapy, he was discharged from the Centre on 18-07-2018 and advised to continue medication. Consequent upon his accident, he was permanently disabled and diagnosed with 70% permanent locomotor disability, in the lower and upper part of his body, requiring the assistance of an attendant for his lifetime on his inability to carry out his day to day routine. The Disability Certificate, dated 24-04-2019, was issued to him by the Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, District Hospital Namchi, Social Justice Empowerment and Welfare Department, Government of Sikkim. That, he was twenty-two years at the time of the accident, earning about Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, to Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only, per month. The documents pertaining to the vehicle in accident including the insurance policy were valid at the time of the accident and hence, the compensation claimed viz.; Rs. 1,48,87,666/- (Rupees one crore, forty eight lakhs, eighty seven thousand, six hundred and sixty six) only.

3. The OP No.1 the insurance company (Appellant herein), the OP No.2 the owner of the vehicle (Respondent No.2 herein) and the OP No.3 driver of the vehicle (Respondent No.3 herein) all filed their written objections denying the claim put forth.

(i) The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in terms of their litigative status before this Court.

(ii) The Learned MACT settled a single issue for determination, i.e., Whether the Claimant is entitled to the compensation claimed? If so, who is liable to compensate him?

(iii) The Respondent No.1 deposed as his own witness and he relied on 39 documents to establish his case. OP No.1 examined its Deputy Manager as its witness and the OP Nos.2 and 3 examined themselves as their own witnesses.

(iv) The Learned MACT analysing the entirety of the evidence furnished before it, concluded that, the Respondent No.1 is entitled to the compensation which was computed as follows;

4. Aggrieved thereof, the Appellant Company is before this Court advancing the argument that the compensation was exorbitant and made for illegal gains. That, the Respondent No.1 was a gratuitous passenger having travelled in the a