Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be 'just' and 'equitable'. When actual income evidence is lacking, minimum wage serves as a baseline. Functional disability, not just physical impairment, must be assessed against the claimant's specific occupation to determine loss of future earning capacity.

Whether approved for reporting? yes

__________________________________________________________________

For the appellant: Ms. Shilpa Sood, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Sunny Moudgill, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) and Ms. Ananya Verma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishta, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

Virender Singh, Judge

The National Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V.Act’) against the award dated 24.11.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III) Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in MAC Claim Petition No. 140 of 2014, titled as, ‘Manmohan Sharma versus Tarun Garg & others’.

By way of award dated 24.11.2017, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 by awarding a sum of Rs. 9,20,900/-, as compensation, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till deposit. The ultimate liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company (appellant).

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal.

Brief facts, leading to filing of present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:-

Petitioner Manmohan Sharma has filed the petition, under Section 166 of M.V. Act, seeking compensation on account of injuries/disability sustained/ suffered by him, in a Motor vehicle accident, which according to him, had taken place on 19.4.2014 at about 5:00 p.m. at village Sidh Chalehar, near Kailash Hotel, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., involving vehicle No. UA-07Q-0063 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No.3.

Elaborating his stand, it has been pleaded that on 19.4.2014, petitioner, alongwith his friend, was on the way to attend a marriage in village Kinnu, on his motor cycle No. PB02V-8727. When, they reached near Kailash Hotel in village Sidh Chalehar, then, the offending vehicle came there from Chintpurni side, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorcyle. Consequently, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries, particularly on his right leg and shoulder.

After the accident, he was taken to PHC Amb, where he was examined by Doctor and first aid was given to him. In view of his serious condition, the Doctor advised that he should be shifted to a better hospital, as such, he was shifted to Purewal Hospital, Hoshiarpur (Pb). He remained admit in the said hospital w.e.f. 19.4.2014 to 27.4.2014.

The matter regarding the accident was reported to the Police of Police Station, Amb and FIR No. 59 of 2014, dated 19.4.2014, under Sections 279, 337, 201 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act, was registered, against respondent No. 1.

It is the further case of the petitioner that due to injuries, sustained by him, he has become disabled and he was forced to spend a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, on his treatment.

Asserting his bright past and bleak future, the petitioner has sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, from the respondents.

When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents, by filing reply(ies).

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed joint reply, in which, they have admitted the factum of accident, however, according to them, the accident in question had taken place, due to negligence of the petitioner himself in driving the motorcycle. Rest o