The court held that compensation awarded for personal injuries must be just and adequate, recognizing the permanent impact on the claimant’s quality of life and adjusting interest rates to reflect economic realities.

1. Heard Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Anita A. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2 at length. None appears for respondent No.1, though duly served.

2. By this Appeal, the original claimant has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 30.3.1990 passed by the learned Member, IIIrd Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Gr. Bombay, (for short, 'Tribunal') in Application No. 565 of 1979 filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act'). By that order, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition instituted by the appellant, hereinafter referred to as 'claimant', and held that he is entitled to recover from respondent no.1, (hereinafter referred to as opposite party), and respondent no.2, (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurer'), compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition until realization, among other directions.

3. The Petition was instituted by the claimant on 16.4.1979 through his father, the next friend, as at the time of accident the claimant was aged about 8 years. The Petition was instituted claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 16.10.1978 at about 4.15 pm near Kashinath House, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai. Initially, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed. By filing application on 26.11.1981 at Exhibit 7, the claim was raised to Rs.15,00,000/-. During the pendency of the Petition, application dated 8.12.1987 at Exhibit 28 was filed raising compensation from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs. 50,00,000/-. The application at Exhibit - 7 was granted. The application at Exhibit - 28 was not decided as on behalf of the claimant it was urged before the Tribunal that it can fix the amount of compensation in excess if so desired and the claimant is prepared to pay such deficit court fees on the enhanced claim of compensation. The relevant and material facts giving rise for filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under, -

4. On 18.10.1978 at about 4.15 pm, the claimant accompanied by his servant Sitaram who was then aged about 12 years, were crossing Nepeansea Road when vehicle bearing Registration no. MMF - 2823 (for short, 'offending vehicle') owned by the opposite party, came from Kamps corner side and dashed the claimant all of a sudden. At that time, the claimant and Sitaram were crossing Nepeansea Road from East to West and the offending vehicle was being driven from North to South. As a result of the impact, the claimant sustained serious injuries and was removed to Breach Candy Hospital. He was admitted there and was unconscious for about 5.1/2 months. The driver of the offending vehicle was prosecuted by the police for rash and negligent driving in criminal case which was registered as C.R.No.1191 of 1978. The learned Magistrate, as is evident from record, convicted the driver upon admitting his guilt.

5. On account of the accident, the claimant was required to take extensive medical treatment as his brain was affected. He could not appear for the ensuing examination because of the continuous pain and suffering undergone by him. It was contended that an amount o