JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
The appellants have filed the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal determining an amount of Rs. 1,91,250 as just compensation to which the injured-claimant was found entitled to on account of the grievous injuries suffered by her in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a motor cycle which had caused the accident resulting in the grievous injuries at the time it was being run rashly and negligently by the present appellant.
2. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the evidence and the materials brought on record, had come to the conclusion that the injured, the minor daughter of Ram Narain Gupta, was aged about 6 years at the time of the accident and the injuries caused to her in the accident had resulted in 25 per cent permanent disability. Her right leg had been fractured and after treatment for about an year, she was able to walk but not in a normal way. She limped while walking. She was not in a position to play games. The medical certificate produced by the claimants indicated that her right leg had become angular and deformed. The disability was indicated to be 25 per cent. The Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation had taken into account the loss of enjoyment of life and amenities, which the injured minor was to suffer throughout her life.
3. It cannot be lost sight of that no award of money can possibly compensate a man and renew a shattered human frame. Effort, therefore, should be made to put the injured party, so far as practicable, in the same position in which he/she would have been if he/she had not sustained the injuries. The bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to the gravity of the injury. The deprivation caused by the injuries may bring with it the consequences of loss of earnings or earning capacity, burden of expenses to pay others for what otherwise the injured would do for himself/herself and loss or diminution of full pleasures of living. While considering the effect of deprivation, the court should have regard to the gravity and degree of the deprivation and degree of the awareness of the deprivation also. The compensation in the case of personal injuries should be substantial in nature and not merely token damages. Though it is impossible to equate money with the human suffering on account of personal deprivations but the court has to make an attempt to award money so far as it can compensate the loss.
4. The Claims Tribunal taking into consideration the age factor and taking into account the notional income provided in the Schedule at a figure of Rs. 15,000 per annum had calculated the compensation of Rs. 2,25,000 utilizing the multiplier of 15. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the quantum determined by the Tribunal does not appear to be unjust and in fact the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation only half-heartedly.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that on the date of the incident they did not own and possess the offending motor vehicle which was purchased in the year 1999. The accident had occurred on 3.12.1998. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 32,945 towards the price of the motor cycle had been deposited on 6.4.1998. The eyewitness account of the accident, which was believed by the Tribunal, pointed out in unmistakable term that at the time of the accident the offending brand new motor vehicle which did not have any registration number was being used and the accident occurred on account of its rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the various facts and circumstances established on record had come to the conclusion that there was clinching evidence on the record to show that the motor cycle which was involved in the accident was not having a registration number, was a brand new motor cycle and in fact did belong to the opposite party No. 2 and the same was being driven by the opposite party No. 1 at the time of accident. The defence version was rejected holding that it was based on manufactured papers and concocted story.
6. We have carefully perused the evidence and material brought on record. The findings returned by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the aforesaid aspect of the matter could not be demonstrated to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify an interference therein. These findings are amply supported and warranted by the evidence and material brought on record.
7. No other submission has either been urged and present in support of this appeal.
8. This appeal is totally devoid pf merits, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.
9. As prayed, the amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited in this court by the insurer appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act be remitted back to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal concerned within one month from the date an application is filed by the appellant for the purpose so that it may be disbursed to the claimant.