An appellate court may enhance compensation under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure even without a formal cross-appeal to meet the ends of justice. For personal injuries causing disability, future prospects must be integrated into earning capacity calculations to ensure 'just compensation'.

Instant appeal is preferred against award dated 16.12.2022, passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.19 of 2019, Nahid Vs. Shri Subhash Chawla and others, by the court of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, by which, the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.28,26,645/- along with interest to the respondent no.1/Nahid (“the claimant”).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The claim petition has been filed by the claimant Nahid through his guardian and next friend on the ground that on 19.10.2015, he along with one Nazir Hussain was waiting for a bus to go to Dehradun when suddenly, a car bearing registration No. UK07 AM 3525 (“the car”) approached them from Dehradun side in a very rash and negligent manner. The car hit a scooter and, thereafter, the claimant and one Nazir Hussain were hit. Nazir Hussain died during treatment. The claimant sustained injuries. At the relevant time, the claimant was 32 years of age and working in Saraswati Printing Press, Dehradun and doing book binding, printing, etc. Due to accident, he became permanently disabled; he is mentally unwell now. He was earning about Rs.11,000/- per month.

4. In the claim petition, the appellant did file objections denying most of the averments made in the claim petition. According to the appellant, the claimant has not produced the relevant documents, for example copy of family register, income certificate, bills relating to treatment, etc. It is also the claim of the appellant that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant himself.

5. The owner of the vehicle, who is respondent no.2, has also filed his objections. He did not accept most of the contentions for want of documents. But, in additional statement, the respondent no.2 has stated that the accident did not take place due to hit by the car. The respondent no.2 has admitted that he is owner of the car which was insured.

6. The parties have filed documents in support of their claim. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

(i) Whether on 19.10.2015, the opposite party no.3 drove vehicle No.UK07 AM 3525 rashly and negligently and hit the claimant?

(ii) Is the petitioner entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from which of the opposite parties?

7. On behalf of the claimant 05 witnesses namely, PW1 Nagina, PW2 Gufraan Malik, PW3 Dr. Nisha Singla, PW4 K.C. Joshi and PW5 Rajkumar, were examined. No witness was examined by the other side.

8. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, due to which, the claimant sustained serious injuries.

9. On issue no.2 i.e. regarding compensation, the Tribunal held that though as per Disability Certificate the claimant is 50% disabled, but his functional incapacity has reached to 100%. It means his loss of earning is 100% and accordingly, determined the compensation, which is impugned.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant raises the following points in his submissions:-

a. The disability of the claimant was determined 50%. To it, the claimant is not entitled for compensation considering his 100% loss of earning.

b. The Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.4,75,000/- compensation for attendant expenses.

c. The Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for future treatment.

d. The inco