A light motor vehicle license holder requires no separate endorsement for transport vehicles under the prescribed weight. Furthermore, functional disability in paralyzed, bedridden victims must be assessed as 100% loss of earning capacity when their condition renders them totally dependent, justifying higher, just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. Heard Ms. Archana Patel, learned advocate with Mr. B.S. Solanki, learned advocate on record for the appellant original claimant. Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 insurance company, being assisted by Mr. Sunil Singh, learned advocate.

2. Despite service of rule issued upon the respondent no.1 viz. the driver - owner of the vehicle involved, has chosen not to enter appearance or contest the present appeal. With the able assistance of learned advocates on record, the appeal is finally heard and decided by this judgment.

3. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1988” at the instance of the original claimant i.e. through his caretaker and wife, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30th August, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (Auxiliary) & Additional District Judge, Porbandar in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.64 of 2010. By the said judgment and award, though the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition, holding the original claimant entitled to seek recovery of some of Rs.3,32,100/- from the original opponent no.1- driver-cum-owner of the vehicle involved, with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization, has however exonerated the original opponent no.2- Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation, and has also not granted the entire claim for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as prayed for by the claimants. Hence the present appeal.

4. In order to appreciate the merits of the appeal, appropriate would be to consider the manner in which the accident was reported.

4.1 On 29th December 2008, while the claimant was going towards the cooperative society namely Dudh Utpadak Mandli, Sodhana, on his motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-10-AE 1564 and when he had reached near the bridge of Sodhana village, one carrier rickshaw driven by the opponent no.1 and insured with opponent no.2 - insurance company approached his vehicle. While the claimant was reaching near the turning point of the bridge on the highway, the said opponent no.1 hit his vehicle from the backside. As a result of impact, the claimant had sustained serious bodily injuries, more particularly on the head, due to which, the claimant went in coma. He was immediately shifted to the hospital. Though he had regained his consciousness, he had sustained permanent disability, as he was completely paralyzed.

4.2 The cause of action therefore arose for the injured to approach the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for compensation by preferring claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. Before the claim Tribunal, since the injured was completely bedridden in paralyzed condition, the claim petition was preferred through his caretaker and wife before the Motor Accident Claim Petition (Auxi), Porbandar, which was registered as MACP no.64 of 2010. By the said claim petition, the original claimants have prayed for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under the various heads with proportionate cost and interest.

5. Considering the aforesaid case pleaded by the claimant, the notices were issued upon the original opponents. The opponent no.1 had appeared through the advocate however had chosen not to submit any written statement. The original opponent no.2- Insurance Company had appeared through its advocate and has submitted its written s