In personal injury claims, compensation must be 'just' and 'reasonable,' aiming to restore the victim to their pre-accident position. Functional disability must be assessed based on vocational incapacity rather than purely medical reports, inclusive of necessary future medical aids and loss of personal amenities.

JUDGMENT

[1.] The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1988”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and award dated 15.07.2013 (hereinafter to be referred as “the impugned judgment and award”) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Banaskantha at Palanpur in M.A.C.P. No.72 of 2003.

[1.1] By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding her entitled to seek recovery of sum of Rs.4,53,620/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. The Tribunal has further held the original opponents nos.3 and 5-Insurance Companies of respective vehicles, jointly and severally, liable along with the driver and owner of the vehicles involved to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation in the apportionment of 65% : 35%, to be paid to the claimant; however, the Tribunal by passing the impugned judgment and award, has not entertained the claim of the entire amount of compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs. Hence, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

[2.] Considering the grounds raised in the appeal memo and the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court, vide order dated 20.10.2015, had admitted the appeal. The notice of admission of appeal, is reported to have been duly served upon respondent nos.2,3 and 5 and the respondent nos. 1 and 4 have been deleted from the array of the parties being the driver of the respective vehicles.

[3.] With the able assistance of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the appeal was heard finally.

[4.] Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-original claimant, has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the quantum of compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in fixing the income of the claimant as Rs.2,500/- only, ignoring the specific case of the claimant of earning her livelihood by doing sewing work. The attention of this Court was invited to the averments made in the claim petition and the deposition of the claimant, which has been recorded at Exh.31. Learned advocate has further invited my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal in this regard.

[4.1] Learned advocate has fairly submitted that no documentary proof of income could be produced on record justifying her claim of Rs. 4,500/- per month. Learned advocate has fairly invited my attention to the fact that, in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the addition of future rise of the income is required to be revisited as 25% instead of 30% as considered by the Tribunal. Learned advocate has further submitted that the Tribunal; however, failed to appreciate the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. Referring to the disability certificate produced on record at Exh. 134 and the relevant medical case papers, it is submitted that the claimant has suffered amputation of the left leg above knee. Apart from the aforesaid serious injuries, the claimant has also suffered fracture in her right leg and she had remained an indoor patient for a long period and had also undergone operations. Considering the aforesaid injury of the claimant and her nature of avocation, the Tribunal ought to have considered it as a case of 100% functional loss instead of confining the disability to the extent of 47% of the body as a whole. Reference was made to the evidence of the claimant, who in her deposition, has categorically deposed that because of the amputation of the left leg above knee, she has been dep