Allowed

Gore Pavan Kumar v. The Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited

Telangana HC2 Sept 2014MACMA/2469/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. Court found Tribunal's award inadequate for a meritorious minor student with permanent disability. Enhanced compensation to include special damages, future treatment, pain, suffering, loss of amenities, and marriage prospects based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 65,000 to Rs. 4,25,350 with 6% p.a. interest.

Gore Pavan Kumar Vs The Manager, New India Assurance… — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2469 of 2007

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Inadequate amount of compensation awarded in O.P.No.118 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Hindupur, made the claimant to come before this Court by way of present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), seeking enhancement of the same.

¶5

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.P.

¶6

The facts in issue are as under:

¶7

On 23.12.2003, the claimant, who was aged about 15 years as on the date of the accident, was proceeding from his house on a bicycle and when he reached near Golden Sweet Stall on M.F.Road, a bus bearing No. AP 02 V 4316 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant and ran over him, resulting in the claimant sustaining injuries. Immediately thereafter, the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Hindupur. The averments in the petition would disclose that the claimant who was studying 10^th class at the time of the accident secured 560 marks in his board examination, which he wrote while taking treatment. It was stated that the intelligence and memory of the student is very high and had he not sustained the injuries in the accident he would have secured good rank and also got admission in good colleges for higher studies. It was further stated that the pain due to injuries diverted his concentration on studies and as such he lost a bright prospect. Hence, the second

¶8

respondent being the owner of the bus and the first respondent being the insurer of the bus are made jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶9

The first and second respondents filed their counters in the O.P. denying the allegations made in the petition. It was contended that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing No. AP 02 V 4316 at the time of the accident and that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. The first respondent further contended that the driver of the bus was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. They also disputed the injuries sustained by the claimant and also the amount spent towards medical expenses. In any event it was stated that the claim made is excessive and exorbitant.

¶10

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issued:

¶11

1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the road accident on 23.12.2003 on account of vehicle bearing No. AP 02 V 4316 as alleged in the petition?

¶12

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount claimed and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

¶13

3) To what relief?

¶14

In support of the claim, the claimant examined PWs.1 to 4 and also got marked Exs.A1 to A16. Though no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but they got marked Ex.B1 a copy of the insurance policy by consent.

¶15

After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

¶16

realization. The Tribunal took the income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per annum as he was a non-earning member, applied multiplier ‘15’, assessed the disability at 20% and awarded Rs.45,000/- towards loss of prospects. While rejecting Ex.A4 the medical bills showing expenditure at Rs.63,187.05 ps. the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. The said findings of the Tribunal are challenged by the claimant in this appeal.

¶17

The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the insurer or by the owner of the vehicle.

¶18

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

¶19

Placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant strenuously contended that the Tribunal has totally ignored the evidence on record with regard to the disability sustained, the loss of opportunities and marriage prospects of the claimant due to his disability and also the other damages which the claimant is entitled to under the pecuniary count.

¶20

Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal rightly assessed the evidence available on record and awarded Rs.65,000/- as compensation which needs no interference.

¶21

In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it may be necessary to refer to the evidence available on record. The chief affidavit of PW.1 would show that at the time of the accident he was a minor studying 10^th class. Immediately after the accident on 23.12.2003, he fell unconscious and his father took him to

¶22

Government Hospital, Hindupur for treatment. On the advice of the doctors at the hospital, PW.1 was shifted to St. John’s Hospital, Bangalore in a taxi on 23.12.2003 itself. His evidence also shows that an operation was performed on his right leg and was an in-patient in the hospital at Bangalore from 23.12.2003 to 04.03.2004. According to him, his father incurred medical expenses to a tune of Rs.64,000/- apart from other expenditure. His evidence also discloses that his public exams commenced from 17.03.2004 and ended on 29.03.2004 and the Hall Ticket number issued by the Board of Secondary Education is 0538564. His evidence reveal that he was a meritorious student securing high marks right from Class-I and his parents and teachers expected him

¶23

to secure a State Rank in March,2004 Board examinations. He states that due to the unfortunate incident which took place on 23.12.2003 he could not attend the school at the right time, prepare himself properly for the exams, missed the intensive coaching classes at the school and as such could not reach the expectations of one and all. It is his evidence that he attended the exams with pain and suffering and in spite of the same he secured 556 marks out of 600 marks. He placed on record the SSC examination marks list and time table of SSC public examinations as Exs.A10 to A14. His evidence also discloses that his father spent substantial amount in engaging a teacher for revision and completion of lessons missed by him before the exams commenced. He deposed that after getting himself discharged from the hospital, his father took him to a doctor by name R.Balaji for treatment. The said doctor treated him and gave a certificate on 17.07.2004 assessing his disability. After completing his 10^th class, the claimant jointed Intermediate in Chaitanya Residential

¶24

Corporate College at Vijayawada in Krishna District. The college mess and classes were arranged in the ground floor and the room of the claimant was in fourth floor. It is deposed that with great difficulty PW1 used to get down from 4^th floor to ground floor for attending the classes and mess putting him lot of pain and suffering. Since he could not attend the classes in time due to pain while getting down from fourth floor, he faced lot of hardship from the teachers. After explaining the hardship caused to him in getting down from fourth floor, his room was shifted to the first floor. It is further stated that the pain in his leg continued and immense of difficulty was faced by him for studying EAMCET classes. On the advice of the Principal of the College, the doctor who used to attend on the students gave him pain killers which enabled him to attend classed. PW.1 deposed that he secured 954 marks in Intermediate though he expected 985 marks out of 1000 marks. Since the marks secured by him were low he could not get a seat in BITS Pilani and also lost a seat in IIT. As he could not prepare effectively, PW.1 could not get a good rank in EAMCET. Ultimately he joined B.Tech at Gitam College, Visakhapatnam. During his course at Visakhapatnam, he underwent medical examination on three occasions. The same is established by way of producing certificates issued by the doctors under Ex.A9. It is his evidence that if he walks continuously for half an hour there would be swelling due to loss of bone in the foot. The doctors have certified stating that the bone is missed at the foot. Due to swelling, the doctors advised PW.1 to undergo another operation, estimating the expenditure at Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. He was advised to use special socks which he used to get from New Delhi. The service of socks was for three months and the cost of a pair of socks was Rs.1100/-. His evidence also discloses the expenditure incurred towards medication and for purchase of PWB clutches.

¶25

PW.1 was subjected to lengthy cross examination. All the suggestions put to him were denied by him. The suggestions given to PW.1 were with regard to the disability sustained, expenses incurred, bills produced and the nature of injuries sustained. To a

¶26

suggestion that the driver of the bus was not having valid driving licence was denied by him. He also denied the suggestion with regard to the quantum of compensation claimed by him. Except these suggestions nothing useful was elicited to discredit his testimony.

¶27

From the evidence of PW.1 and documents filed, it is clear that he was a meritorious student. In spite of pain, suffering and inconvenience caused during the said period, he did extremely well in X class Board Examination and Intermediate. His evidence gives sequence of events with regard to the sufferings which he underwent during his education and also his failure in securing good marks and admission in good colleges due to his disability.

¶28

PW.2 is a doctor who was working as an Orthopedic Surgeon in St.John’s Hospital, Bangalore. He deposed that the claimant, who was aged about 15 years at the time of accident, was admitted in the hospital on 23.12.2003 with the history of R.T.A. He speaks about the initial treatment given in a private hospital in Anantapur District, wherein the wounds were sutured. He noticed the following injuries on the body of PW.1.

¶29

1. Open type III fracture of right tibia

¶30

2. Comminuted fracture medial mallelous (R)

¶31

3. Raw area (R) leg and dorsum of foot

¶32

4. Sutured wound forehead.

¶33

His evidence further discloses that the claimant was operated on 24.12.2003, wherein wound debridement and external fixation of fracture of tibia was done by Dr. Prasad (Orthopedic), on 01.01.2004 wound debridement was done by Dr.Asif (Orthopedic), on 13.01.2004 LD flap for the raw area (R) leg and skin grafting was done by Dr. Ashok (Plastic Surgeon) and on 19.02.2004 split skin graft for the raw area of the LD flap was done by Dr. Chandra Bose (Plastic Surgeon). Thereafter, the claimant was discharged on 03.03.2004 with an advice to review in Orthopedic and Plastic Surgery OPD. He assessed the disability at 50% of right lower limb. He placed on record a copy of the case sheet containing 135 pages which indicate the treatment taken by the claimant in St. John’s Hospital, Bangalore. His evidence discloses the expenditure of Rs.63,180/- incurred towards medication vide Ex.A6 bunch of medical bills, the expenditure of Rs.25,000/- which the claimant may incur for cosmetic purpose and also the disability of limping which the claimant sustained due to the accident. It has been elicited in the cross examination of PW.2 that he was head of the team of doctors at the time of surgery. The suggestion that the bill amount mentioned in Ex.A4 is exaggerated, was denied by him and PW.2 also denied the cost to be incurred for future surgery. In the cross examination it has been elicited that the disability was assessed at 10% for shortening of limb, 10% for reducing knee movement, 20% for reducing ankle movement and 10% for wasting of the muscle and loss of sensation.

¶34

PW.3 is the father of the claimant, who corroborated the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the manner in which the accident took place and also taking the claimant to different hospitals apart from the quantum of money spent towards treatment. PW.4 is an eye witness to the incident. Both the witnesses were cross

¶35

examined at length but nothing useful was elicited to discredit their testimony. As stated above, the finding of the Tribunal as to the manner in which the accident took place is not challenged. Therefore, it may not be necessary to discuss the evidence of PW.4.

¶36

In order to award compensation in case of personal injuries the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another^[1] held as under:

¶37

5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

¶38

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)

¶39

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

¶40

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-

¶41

pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) – involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(b).

¶42

In the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned case, I shall proceed to deal with the case on hand. It is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning, inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for disability caused due to the accident.

¶43

In R.D.Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.^[2] the

¶44

Apex Court held as under:

¶45

"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of

¶46

injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." In the same case, the Court further observed:

¶47

In Reshma Kumari V. Madan Moha n^[3] the Apex Court

¶48

held as under:

¶49

"The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so.

¶50

In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance

¶51

[4] Company Limite d , the Apex Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After noticing the factual matrix of the case, the Court observed as under:-

¶52

"We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities

¶53

in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered."

¶54

After following the judgments referred to above, the Apex Court in Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company Limite d^[5] held as under:

¶55

A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons. Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liabilities minimized. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses' make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless. It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Sections 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

¶56

Before proceeding further, it may be necessary to note that the respondents have not let in any oral evidence except marking a copy of the insurance policy with consent. Therefore, the only evidence available on record is that of the evidence of PWs.1 to

¶57

¶58

As seen from the evidence referred to above, the accident took place on 23.12.2003 at Hindupur. Immediately after the accident the claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Hindupur and on the advice of the doctors he was taken to St. John’s Hospital, Bangalore. Though PW.1 in his evidence stated that they have hired a vehicle by spending Rs.2,000/- and a further sum of Rs.2,000/- on the date of discharge, the Tribunal did not award any amount under the said count. When there is no dispute with regard to place of accident (Hindupur) and place of treatment (Bangalore), I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards transportation charges.

¶59

The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 categorically established that the claimant was an in-patient in St. John’s Hospital, Bangalore for nearly 71 days. He being a resident of Hindupur, which is far from Bangalore, the claimant must have taken the help of an attendant to attend on him during the said period and also for some time thereafter as the medical evidence would show that there was a shortening of right leg which made him to limp. Therefore, an amount of Rs.7,500/- can be awarded towards attendant charges. Since the claimant was a young boy aged about 15 years, definitely he must have been given good nutritious food for a speedy recovery. His parents would have been more anxious for early recovery as he was studying 10^th class and he was about to write the Board exams. Hence, I deem it just to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment.

¶60

Coming to the medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. The said amount appears to be on lower side. A reading of the material on record would show that the claimant has spent a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh

¶61

towards expenses, but the evidence on record namely Ex.A4 a bunch of medical bills, show the expenditure at Rs.63,187.05 ps. and Ex.A16 the final settlement bill would show Rs.53,815.50 ps. Though PW.2, who was the head of team of doctors and who treated PW.1, deposed about the issuance of medical bills the Tribunal declined to accept the same on the ground that the bills did not contain the name of PW.2. Since the persons who received the bill amount namely cashier Sagya, Sr. Linent, Laly, SR.Jessy, N.Manju, Newtan, Girijamba were not examined in the Court the Tribunal refused to accept the amounts covered under Exs.A4 and A16 on the said ground also. I am afraid, the approach of the Tribunal appears to be incorrect. It is well established principles of law that strict rules of evidence will not apply to the cases arising under the Motor Vehicles Act. Since, PW.2 who is the head of the team of doctors and who treated PW.1 deposed about the issuance of the bills, the expenditure incurred and no objection was raised when the same were marked the same can be accepted. Hence an amount of Rs.20,000/awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is enhanced to Rs.53,850/-. Since the claimant was a young boy aged about 15 years at the time of the accident, his father must have incurred some miscellaneous expenditure which may not be possible to give an account as they would not have expected of filing of this case so as to preserve the bills for the sundry expenditure incurred during the said period. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses.

¶62

As the claimant was a student during the said period, he may not be entitled to loss of earning during the period of treatment, but definitely he is entitled to loss of earnings on account of disability sustained by him. While assessing the same,

¶63

the Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per annum, applied multiplier ‘15’ as the claimant was aged about 15 years and by taking the disability at 20% awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- under the said count. The said amount, in my view, also appears to be on lower side. As stated earlier, the claimant was a meritorious student in his academic career. Due to hospitalization for a period of three months ie. from 23.12.2003 to 04.03.2014 he was not in a position to meet his goal and also the expectations of his teachers in the school by getting a good rank. Definitely that must have put the claimant to a lot of disappointment and frustration. The evidence also shows that with lot of pain and suffering the claimant studied Intermediate by going to a place which is far away from his home. Even there he secured 954 marks out of 1000 marks. His evidence is that he could not concentrate effectively on his education due to pain in his right leg and also the discomfort caused in climbing to the fourth floor during the said period. The unimpeached evidence show that his right leg was get swollen if he walks for some time as there was a loss of bone in right foot. That being the position, fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.1250/- per month for assessing the loss of future earnings appears to be highly irrational. Taking into consideration the mental aptitude of the claimant, his high rate of intelligence and also his achievement in spite of difficulty, the income of the claimant can be fixed at Rs.50,000/- per annum. Definitely the claimant being such a bright and smart boy, must have opted for the same. Though the learned counsel for the insurance company tried to contend that there was no disability as such for the purpose of awarding compensation towards loss of earnings, the finding of the Tribunal in assessing the disability at 20% and calculating the loss of earnings by adopting multiplier method was not challenged by the insurance company. Therefore, the counsel for the insurance company is

¶64

precluded from raising the said grounds in this appeal.

¶65

Loss of bone in the right foot and also the limping which the claimant sustained, due to the said accident, are permanent in nature. In fact, the same is spoken to by PW.2 whose evidence could not be demolished by the respondent. Even taking the disability at 20% as assessed by the Tribunal, applying multiplier ‘15’ the loss of future earnings on account of disability would be Rs.50,000/- x 20/100 x 15 = Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶66

The evidence of PW.2 which remain un-impeached goes to show that the claimant might have spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- if the patient requires further surgery for cosmetic purpose so as to reduce the swelling. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses.

¶67

Coming to the non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal did not award any amount towards pain and suffering and trauma undergone by the claimant as a consequence of the injuries. One cannot imagine the amount of agony, trauma and pain which the young boy must have undergone during the period of three months of his hospitalization. On one hand he must be worried about his 10^th class Board examination, which he was supposed to attend in the month of March, 2004, and on the other hand the series of operations, which have been performed on him, during the said period. In fact, different doctors performed different types of operations on the right leg during the said period. The amount of agony, which he must have undergone, cannot be weighed in terms of money. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering.

¶68

Coming to the loss of amenities in life, the undisputed fact remains on record is the shortening of right leg and the continuous

¶69

pain which the claimant was having due to loss of bone in the right foot. Definitely these two aspects must have put the claimant in a disadvantageous position in life. He would have not been in a position to enjoy the life in the same way in which a normal child would have done during that age. He was not in a position to attend classes in the manner which he would have been done had he been normal. The difficulty which he faced in climbing four floors to his room after attending the classes during his Intermediate course is explained in a very vivid manner by the claimant. The wrath which he is faced from his teachers in attending late to the classes due to his difficulty in walking is explained by PW1 in a very vivid manner. All these facts though cannot be put under one caption but definitely must have caused immense pressure on the life of PW.1. These unforgettable movements in life must have definitely expelled the student from taking a positive and forward step in his life. Hence, an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be awarded towards loss of opportunities in life. Further his marriage prospects also must have become bleak due to the physical disability. As stated earlier, the disability of limping is permanent in nature and the swelling and bulkiness of right leg could be reduced only if the claimant undergoes a cosmetic surgery, which is again an un-certainty. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects and basic amenities in life.

¶70

The learned counsel for the insurance company strenuously contended that such a magnanimous approach in awarding compensation may not be necessary in this case. But the said argument needs to be rejected without any consideration as the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation, the interest of the claimant is the paramount consideration, more particularly in a case of this nature namely the claimant who was a meritorious

¶71

student, whose ambitions in life were shattered due to the accident in which there is no fault on his part. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,25,350/-.

¶72

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from RS.65,000/- to Rs.4,25,350/-. The enhanced amount will carry an interest of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶73

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal, if any shall stand closed.

¶74

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 02.09.2014. gkv

¶75