In motor vehicle accident cases, where evidence of permanent disability is lacking, the court may determine just and reasonable compensation on a lump sum basis considering the nature of injuries, treatment duration, and necessary expenses, while awarding a standard interest rate of 7.5% per annum.

JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the award dated 11.04.2001 passed by the learned II Member Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings – cum -VII (Addl. Chief Judge), City Civil Court, Hyderabad -cum - Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal in O.P. No.1514 of 1996, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant came to be partly allowed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of Andhra Pradesh motor vehicles rules 1989 r/w. section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are driver, owner/insured and insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., Maurthi Esteem bearing registration No. AP 10 G 5500, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.10.1986.

4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte and whereas respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed their respective counters denying the allegations mentioned in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim application.

5. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs. 13,500/- with interest at 4% per annum. Aggrieved thereby, the claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard Sri K. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, Sri P. Harinath Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 i.e. insurance company.

7. Now the point that arises for determination in this Appeal is:

“Whether the appellant/claimant has made out any valid and sustainable grounds for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and consequent interference with the impugned award?”

8. In the present case, the claimant contends that the learned Tribunal erred in disbelieving the disability despite the doctor’s evidence.

9. It is to be seen that the claimant did not take any steps to adduce either oral or documentary evidence to show that he had sustained permanent disability. The claimant did not even explain as to what is the disability that he had sustained because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

10. In the absence of any such evidence, the learned Tribunal did not consider the submissions of the claimant so far as disability as concerned.

11. This Court is conscious of the fact that in injury cases compensation is ordinarily determined by assessing the functional disability and the consequent loss of earning capacity. The ultimate objective of the Court is to award just, fair and reasonable compensation having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Where the evidence available on record does not permit precise mathematical determination of the loss of earning capacity of the injured claimant, the Court is not precluded from determining the compensation on a reasonable lump sum basis.

12. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards grievous injury (fracture of left clavicle), Rs.1,000/- towards pain and sufferance, Rs.1,500/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.6,000/- towards damage caused to the vehicle of the claimant.

13. The claimant alleged to have sustained shoulder, leg fracture, head injury, shoulder fracture and other injuries. However, the learned Tribunal based on medical evidence, arrived to a conclusion that