The court established that compensation must reflect actual loss and suffering, emphasizing the need for just compensation in personal injury cases.

JUDGMENT :

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. This appeal from the order has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to “Act 1988”) by appellant-Nikita Raghuvanshi being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 14.02.2022 passed by VIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), Bhopal in Claim Petition No. 1690/2019 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,29,526/- with interest of 6% per annum to the injured from the date of application till the date of payment against the respondent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short “MACT”).

3. The brief facts are that the claim petition was filed with the averments that on 27.01.2019 at about 8:00 pm, when the injured was eating Nodules or Chowmean near Baba Nagar Sanchi Point at that time a Car bearing No. MP-04 TA-8672 came from Bansal Hospital driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and hit the injured/claimant, due to which, she sustained serious injuries and immediately she was shifted to the Bhopal Fracture Hospital, admitted for treatment. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said car bearing No. MP-04 TA-8672 and based on the complaint lodged by Ritesh Raghuvanshi, the Chunabhatti Police registered a case in Crime No. 31/2019 for the offences Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court at Bhopal against accused/driver (respondent no. 1) for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and the Doctor found that the injured was sustained serious fractures on left leg, left hip, waist, head and all over the body and she was operated femur bone and hip joint and four screws and plats were inserted during the treatment, before the accident claimant was working as a salesman in Shreeram Traders getting Rs. 15,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, she lost her job and she became permanent disabled. She is not able to do work and she faces much inconvenience due to injuries on her waist and hip and the claimant loose her memory and became weak.

4. The claimant Nikita Raghuvanshi filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 15,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.

5. The first and second respondents have not contested the matter.

6. The respondent no. 3, i.e. National Insurance Company filed a written statement and contended that the allegations made in the application were false. It is further averred that first respondent did not have any valid or effective driving license at the time of the accident. The vehicle which caused the accident was being driven by its driver in violation of Insurance Policy, and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues dated 30.01.2021:

“(i) Whether on 27.01.2019 at about 8:00 pm, the non-applicant no. 1 drove the Car bearing No. MP-04 TA 8672 in a rash and neglignely and dashed the appellant herein and caused injuries?

(ii) Whether the appellant suffered serious injuries on account of the said accident?

(iii) Whether the appellant was permanently disabled due to the said accident?

(iv) Whether the appellant is entitled for compensation. If yes, then from whom and how much?

(v) Whether the vehicle was being driven by its driver in violation of the terms of the insurance policy?

(vi) Aid and expenditure?”

8. In order to establish her claim, at the time of trial before the Tribunal, PW-1 (injured) and PW-2 (Doctor) were examined, and exhibits Ex.P-1 to P-115(C) were marked on behalf of the claimant. No evidence was led, and no document was marked on behalf of the respondent no. 3/Insurance Company.

9. The learned Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence on