The assessment of functional disability in motor accident cases must be tied to the claimant's specific avocation, and self-employed individuals are eligible for future prospects, ensuring that compensation remains just and reasonable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide award dated 09.01.2001, whereby a sum of ₹3,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization was awarded on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehicular accident dated 01.08.1999. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. HR-39-0942 by respondent No.1.

2. Briefly stated, the facts as emerge from the impugned award are that the appellant-claimant Rajesh Kumar filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident dated 01.08.1999 at about 1:40 PM. It was pleaded that while he was travelling as a pillion rider on Scooter No. HR-34/6866, being driven on the correct side of the road, a Haryana Roadways Bus bearing No. HR-39/0942, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side and struck against the scooter, resulting in multiple grievous injuries. FIR No. 158 dated 02.08.1999 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered at Police Station Khol. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged about 30 years, was married and had two dependent children, was stated to be running a service station and also engaged in agricultural and allied activities. In support of his avocation and income, he stepped into the witness box and deposed that he was earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month, which formed the basis of his claim before the learned Tribunal. It further emerges from the record that the appellant was initially taken to PHC Kanina and thereafter shifted to Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon, where he remained admitted from 01.08.1999 to 31.08.1999 and underwent multiple surgical procedures. The medical evidence, including testimony of doctors and disability certificate issued by the competent medical board, shows that the appellant suffered preganglionic brachial plexus injury (right) along with fractures of right upper limb and femur, and was assessed to have suffered 60% permanent disability in relation to the right upper limb (and not to the whole body), resulting in monoplegia, muscle wasting and functional impairment of the limb. Insofar as the medical expenses are concerned, the appellant has substantiated his claim by placing on record medical bills and documents exhibited as Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-15 to Ex.P-116, besides additional bills produced in evidence as Ex.P-148 to Ex.P-153. The said unrebutted documentary evidence clearly establishes that the appellant incurred medical expenditure of approximately ₹2,00,000/- towards his treatment. The evidence further indicates that he remained under prolonged treatment, underwent repeated follow-up visits to the hospital and incurred additional expenses towards transportation and attendant care. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues and, upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led on record, decided Issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and partly allowed the claim petition, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the appellant Rajesh Kumar along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, fastening the liability jointly and severally upon the respondents. Aggrieved against the aforesaid award pass