In motor vehicle personal injury cases, compensation must be comprehensively assessed under both pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, incorporating future prospects and appropriate multipliers based on the victim's age, to ensure just and fair compensation when the initial award lacks proper judicial consideration.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 04.04.2005 passed by MACT, Rewari (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.45 of 2002 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,47,600/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.UP-14-C-1365 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

“1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Car No. UP-14-C1365 by respondent no.1 on 10.7.2001 as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue Nо.1 is proved, what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to get and if so from whom? OPP.

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident? If so to what effect? OPR-3.

4. Relief.”

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,47,600/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally. However, it was ordered that the first charge shall be on the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle and respondents No.1 to 3 were held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. However, the first charge shall be on the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The compensation has not been awarded for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per settled law and the impugned award is thus liable to be enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

10. As per version of claimant, he had suffered multiple injuries including compound communited fracture of left leg. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Rewa