In motor vehicle accident injury cases, 'just compensation' requires determining both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, including future prospects and loss of amenities, by applying appropriate multipliers and disability percentages, while ensuring the assessment serves to restore the victim's economic and personal position efficiently.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 06.09.2002 passed by MACT, Fatehabad (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of the compensation awarded in MACT Case No.32 of 1996/2000 in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.2,17,800/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest @ 9% per annum, due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.HR-46-8395 (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 respondent No.1 was driving his truck No.HR-46-8395 in a rash and negligent manner as on 28.8.96 in the area of Bahadurgarh thereby caused injuries on the person of Satyawan? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so to what amount? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable on the grounds mentioned in the preliminary objections of the written statement? OPR

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.2,17,800/- as compensation to the claimant on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. However, it was held that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and in view of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, Insurance Company was exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. However, it was ordered that respondent No.3-Insurance Company shall first of all make the payment of the awarded amount to the claimant and thereafter, it shall have a right to recover the same from respondent No.2-insured.

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. 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. 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. Learned counsel contended that income of the claimant has been assessed on lower side. No future prospects have been added to the income of the injured. The claimant had suffered 60% permanent disability due to paralysis of lower limb and shortening of leg with deformity in the foot. The claimant was 23 years of age but multiplier of 16 has been applied instead of 18 while assessin