1. The present civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 17.03.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’ for short) Fast Track No.1, Dholpur, in Claim Case No. 370/2004, whereby compensation of Rs. 6,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition has been awarded in favour of the claimant– respondent No.1.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 05.05.1999 at about 9:30–10:00 a.m., the claimant–respondent No.1 was travelling on his motorcycle from Badi towards Dholpur. Near the slope of Khanpura, a jeep bearing registration No. RNT 1408, driven by its driver Hari Babu, came from the opposite direction and collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered serious injuries, including fractures of the tibia and fibula, and his right leg was later amputated. At the time of the accident, the claimant was working as a constable in the Police Department and was earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month.

3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver and fixed liability upon the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal, therefore, awarded compensation of Rs. 6,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Dhiraj Tripathi argued that the learned Tribunal committed an error in holding the jeep driver negligent. It was submitted that the statement of NAW-1, the jeep driver, shows that the accident took place due to the negligence of the claimant himself. It was also argued that the learned Tribunal drew adverse inferences even though no site plan or independent eyewitness was produced.

5. It was further submitted that the claim petition was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the driver of the jeep and the owner and insurer of the motorcycle driven by the claimant. According to learned counsel, in the absence of abovementioned necessary parties, the issue of contributory negligence and liability could not have been properly decided.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the claimant-respondent did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Reliance was placed on a certificate (Ex. A-1) produced before the learned Tribunal alleging that the claimant’s driving licence was forged. It was further argued that the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting this document.

7. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondentclaimant.

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

9. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has considered the statement of the claimant, the FIR, charge-sheet and medical documents, as well as the statement of NAW-1, the jeep driver. The FIR claimed to have been lodged by the jeep driver was not placed on record, whereas a charge-sheet was filed against him. The learned Tribunal, therefore, did not accept the version of NAW-1 and held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. This Court noted that the findings as recorded by learned Tribunal are based on the material available on record and does not call for interference by this Court.

10. With regard to the allegation of a forged driving licence, learned Tribunal found that the certificate (Ex. A-1) was not proved, as neither the issuing authority nor the author of the document was examined. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal on this issue.

11. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the permanent disability of the claimant at 60% on the basis of the Medical Board certificate and applied the multiplier method to calculate the loss of future earning capacity. The learned Tribunal, is in terms of the principles explained by Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 has passed the award. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed in Raj Kumar (supra)are reproduced as under:-

                  10 . Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood,or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.

                  13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:

                  (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

                  (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

                  (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

                   (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

12. The purpose of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide fair and reasonable compensation to the victim for the loss suffered, keeping in view the nature of injuries, the extent of disability and the effect on earning capacity and day-to-day life. Unless the amount awarded is found to be clearly excessive or inadequate, this Court would normally not interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. A similar humane approach in serious injury cases has also been emphasized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 389. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

                  14. Point No. (iii) is also required to be answered in favour of the Appellant. We are of the view that the Appellant is substantially entitled to enhancement of compensation under various heads of non-pecuniary damages having regard to the concurrent findings recorded on this aspect of the matter by the High Court. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have accepted the nature of injuries sustained by her and the percentage of permanent partial disablement suffered by her due to the Motor Vehicle Accident as per the Disability Certificate No. 943 dated 24.2.2006 issued by the Chief Medical Officer of the District Medical Board of Sambalpur. This aspect of the matter is very relevant for the purpose of examining the claim of the Appellant and also to find out as to whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in not awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the Appellant under the various heads of non-pecuniary damages. This Court is required to keep in mind justice, equity and good conscience which must be the primary, relevant and important aspects for awarding just and reasonable compensation to an unfortunate victim, the Appellant herein who has sustained grievous injuries to her body and whose future prospects are completely doomed. Further, the Tribunal and courts while awarding compensation for bodily injuries, must realise that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and that all other possessions and ownership are the extensions of the basic right. Bodily injuries should be equated with the deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages and the amount of damages varies in accordance with the gravity of injuries. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to certain paragraphs which have been referred to by the Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy v. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Limited and Anr. MANU/KA/0055/2004 : ILR 2004 Karnataka 2471, wherein the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has considered the relevant important aspects from the judgment of this Court and the House of Lords and different learned scholars and authors of books on awarding pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The abovementioned decision states about the approach of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals and Courts for awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimants in relation to the bodily injuries suffered by them. It is worthwhile to extract Paragraph 16 from K. Narasimha Murthy case (supra), which reads as under:

                  16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in the decisionmaking. There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries.

                  1 6 . Further, on this point, Justice Viscount Dunedin in Admiralty Comrs v. S.S. Valeria (1922) 2 A.C. 242 at p. 248, has observed thus:

                  The true method of expression, I think, is that in calculating damages you are to consider what is the pecuniary consideration which will make good to the sufferer, as far as money can do so, the loss which he has suffered as the natural result of the wrong done to him.

                  17. Further, Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. 1880 5 App. Cas. 25 at p. 39, has held as under:

                  Where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given.... you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the person who has been injured.... in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong.

13. In view of the above discussion, and considering the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgment this Court finds no merit in the present appeal.

14. Accordingly, the civil misc. appeal is dismissed. The award dated 17.03.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track No.1, Dholpur, in Claim Case No. 370/2004 is hereby affirmed.