Claimants are entitled to just and reasonable compensation reflecting the extent of injury sustained and loss of earning capacity, as per provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 30.9.2003 passed by Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 134 of 1999 whereby in an injury case compensation of Rs. 39,785 had been awarded in favour of the injured - claimant.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 7.4.1996 when the injured - claimant Vijay Soni was riding his motor cycle, he was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. MP 23 - D 6454 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'), as a result of which Vijay Soni sustained a number of injuries. He was immediately taken to the Mission Hospital, Tilda and considering his serious condition, he was referred to higher medical centre in Sector - 9, Bhilai where he remained till 16.5.1996.

3. A claim case was filed by the injured - claimant through his next friend Heera - mani Soni (wife of the injured - claimant) claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000, inter alia, pleading that in the said accident he has suffered severe head injuries, his jaw was broken and likewise he also sustained injuries on other parts of his body. At the relevant time, injured - claimant was working as a peon in the District Cooperative Central Bank. Branch - Hathband, Raipur and thereby getting salary of Rs. 6,110 per month, on account of the accident he has lost complete vision of his right eye, whereas vision of his left eye has also been substantially reduced to 6/18; he remained in coma for about one month, he has completely lost his memory, and considering his physical condition he was compulsorily retired from the bank by giving him three months' salary and now he is on the road. It was further pleaded in the claim petition that the injured - claimant was maintaining his old mother, father, wife, three minor daughters and a son. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and duly insured with respondent No. 4. A criminal case was registered against the driver and during the course of trial, the driver has accepted his guilt, for which he was duly punished by the competent court.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not file their written statement and also remained absent, hence they were proceeded ex parte. However, the respondent No. 3, insurance company, contested the case and denied its liability on usual grounds, such as there was negligence on the part of the injured - claimant, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, valid fitness certificate and permit.

5. By the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 39,785 to the claimant holding that claimant has failed to prove the factum of permanent disability suffered by him in the accident to the extent of 75 per cent. According to the Tribunal, the doctor has not stated as to on what basis the said permanent disability certificate was issued by him. Further, the Tribunal has disbelieved some of the medical documents on the ground that on those documents name of the doctor has not been mentioned. It has also disbelieved the expenditure incurred by the claimant for repair of his motor cycle on the ground that no such evidence has been adduced by the claimant and has awarded Rs. 34,785 towards medical expenses and Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering suffered by the claimant.

6. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant - claimant is as under:
(i) that the impugned award appears to be a mockery of judicial system where the Tribunal has utterly failed to consider the evidence adduced by the claimant and has granted a sum of Rs. 39,78