Order

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises out of the Award dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Bhilwara (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 174/2022 (CIS No. 465/2019), whereby claim petitioner filed by appellant has been partly allowed and total compensation of Rs.3,92,500/- has been awarded with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 02.07.2019. The Appellant, being the claimant-injured, assails the award as inadequate and prays for enhancement.

2. On 31.03.2019, at around 1:40 P.M., the Appellant was travelling on his motorcycle from Gulabpura towards Joginia Mata temple when the driver of a Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No. RJ-06-CD-1882, i.e. Respondent No. 3, drove the vehicle in a rash, negligent and wrong-sided manner and struck the Appellant's motorcycle head-on near a point approximately six miles ahead of Gulabpura. As a result, the Appellant sustained a comminuted fracture of the right knee with insertion of a plate and wire, fracture of the right radius ulna bone, and fractures at two other sites, all requiring surgical intervention. The Medical Board certified 26% permanent physical disability to the whole body. The Appellant, aged 26 years at the time of the accident, was engaged as a factory helper at RSWM Ltd. and in farming.

3. The Tribunal, after framing five issues, found that the accident was caused by the negligence of Respondent No. 3; that the vehicle was owned by Respondent No. 2 and was insured with Respondent No. 1-Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., at the time of the accident. These findings have not been challenged before this Court. The only question before this Court is whether the compensation awarded is adequate or deserves enhancement.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits the learned Tribunal has failed to award “just compensation” as mandated under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is a settled position of law that compensation must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the nature of injuries and loss suffered by the claimant. The Appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries, including a comminuted fracture of the knee requiring surgical intervention and fractures of the arm necessitating insertion of rods. These injuries have resulted in permanent disability assessed at 26% to the whole body. The Appellant was only 26 years of age at the time of the accident and was engaged in gainful employment as a factory helper along with agricultural work. The Appellant was engaged in physically demanding work, which required full mobility and strength. The injuries sustained, particularly to the knee and arm, have substantially impaired his ability to perform such work. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of earning capacity in light of the functional disability rather than merely relying on a notional or arbitrary figure. It is therefore prayed that the compensation be enhanced and modified in accordance with established legal principles.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–Insurance Company, while supporting the impugned award, submits that the Tribunal has duly appreciated the entire evidence on record and has correctly assessed and computed the compensation. It is contended that the award passed is just, fair and in accordance with law, and therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court

6. The Tribunal awarded compensation under three heads: Rs. 45,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 52,500/- towards medical expenses, attendant charges and special diet; and Rs. 2,95,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of income, the last head computed on an ad hoc lump sum basis without applying the structured multiplier method.

The Tribunal did not accept the claimed income of Rs.35,000/- per month as no reliable documentary proof in the form of salary slips or employment records was produced. This Court finds no