The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Tribunal's decision on compensation must adhere to beneficial legislation and authoritative pronouncements, and the rate of interest should be in line with the latest legal decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the injured-claimant challenges the judgment and award dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 1151 of 2014 awarding a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 7%.

3. We do not burden the judgment with unnecessary facts except the facts needed for computing the compensation as all other issues have attained finality as neither Insurance Company nor the owner has filed any cross-objection and/or appeal. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation as the Tribunal very strangely did not grant any amount for future loss of income, actual loss of income though the claimant who was 22 years of age on 29.5.2014.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, so as to challenge the order of the Tribunal has relied upon the following decisions :

(i) Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330;

(ii) Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735;

(iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178; and

(iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011.

(v) Hari Babu Vs. Amrit Lal and others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (All.).

5. As narrated above, the accident is not in dispute. The negligence of the driver is also not in dispute. The injured sustained 53% injuries on his different parts of body is proved by evidence of Orthopaedic Surgeon, Dr. R.P. Mishra, who has given the disability certificate as the treating doctor did not give any disability certificate. The injured had to go to a private doctor. The petitioner was hospitalized from 29.5.2014 to 12.6.2014. It is an admitted position from prescription and the injury certificates of the hospital that he was treated by Dr. Atul Rastogi and Dr. Nitin Gupta at Jaswant Rai Speciality Hospital. He was an indoor patient from 29.5.2014 to 12.6.2014. Several time he was subjected to different kind of C.T. Scans. He was having crushed injuries on his left hand. He had injuries on the lower limb also. The Tribunal very strangely granted medical expenses but as the certificate was given by private Doctor, refuse to grant any amount for loss of income despite the fact that there was X-ray report which shows fixation device. There was healed fracture of superior ramus of right pubis and inferior rami of both pubis. X-ray report of right leg shows that there are old healed fracture (with callus formation) of lower 1/3rd of shaft of right tibia is seen, fixation of device was seen and there are old healed fracture with callus formation of upper 1/3rd of shaft of right fibula is seen. X-ray report of left thigh shows there are old healed fracture (with callus formation) of lower 1/3rd of shaft of left femur is seen and fixation is seen in situ.

6. The Tribunal while deciding the issue of compensation payable has come to the conclusion that the injuries are non Scheduled injuries. The Tribunal considered that the disability given by the doctor was not acceptable as he was not the treating doctor and only for taking certificate of disability he had approached Dr. R.P. Mishra and he brushed aside the evidence of Dr. R.P. Mishra and came to the conclusion that the injured cannot be said to have contracted any permanent partial disablement and, therefore, he was not entitled for any amount as the certificates did inspire confidence. In our view, this finding is against the contours of beneficial piece of legislation. Dr. R.P. Mishra had also referred the patient t