The main legal principle established in the judgment is the correct approach for calculating compensation for permanent disability and medical expenses under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, taking into account the Appellant's future earning potential and the actual medical expenses incurred.

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal under Section of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 31st July, 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.) Indoor, in Claim Case No. 207/2003.

2. The Appellant on 13th February, 2003 was travelling in Maruti Van bearing registration No. M.P. 09 H.C. 8310, when the accident was caused by truck bearing registration No. M.P. 09 D 7640, which was coming from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner. In the accident the Appellant had received serious injuries, therefore, he had filed the claim case No. 207/2003, before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned award found that in the accident the Appellant had received grievous injuries and permanent disability was also caused to him. The Tribunal instead of calculating the loss of earning due to the permanent disability by taking into account the relevant factors, granted a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on account of the permanent disability suffered by him. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for treatment, expenses, special diet etc. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application.

3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the Appellant and none of those findings have been challenged at the instance of the Respondents, i.e., owner/ driver/Insurance Company by filing cross appeal or cross objection. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on those issues.

4. learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the lump-sum amount without taking into account the relevant factors for calculating the compensation. He submitted that the amount, which has been awarded by the Tribunal is much on the lower side.

5. learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Insurance Company supporting the award submitted that the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for interference by this Court is required,

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The record indicates that the Appellant had received several injuries of grievous nature in the accident and he had suffered the permanent disability on account of those injuries. The Appellant has stated that his 3rd, 4th, and 5th left rib bones were fractured, there was fracture in right mandible, there was comminuted fracture in humerus bone and elbow of the right hand. There was comminuted fracture in the femur bone of the left leg. There were also comminuted fracture in tibia fibula of the left leg, in the femur bone of the right leg and fracture on the knee of the right leg. He had also received multiple fracture on the face. He remained admitted in the hospital for long time. He has stated that due to the injuries, he found it difficult to sit on the floor and perform his daily activities. Dr. S.N. Goyal had, given the permanent disability certificate Ext. P/60. According to him, there was restriction in the movement of right elbow and right knee. There was disability in movement of his right knee by 16%, left hip and leg by 20%, right hip by 15% and leg by 13%. Dr. Satyanarayan AW-1, who had treated the Appellant and performed several operations has stated that the fracture of left hip and femur bone of thigh was fixed by putting rod and screw. Similarly, the fracture of femur bone of right leg was fixed by putting rod and screw. Tibia bone of right leg was fixed by rod and humerus of right hand was fixed by plate and fracture of elbow was fixed by wire. The multiple fracture and injuries received on the face were fixed by wire. Doctor opined that the Appellant had suff