This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Ramrakh Bishnoi, assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1988"), was dismissed insofar as grant of compensation was concerned. The appellant seeks interference by this Court contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and erred in denying compensation despite proved injuries, permanent disability and consequential loss of service prospects suffered by the appellant.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are that on 08.12.2008 at about 02:00 P.M., the appellant, while riding his motorcycle bearing No.RJ-20SE- 1614 (Bajaj Platina), had gone to SDM Chowk, Roorkee for refueling his vehicle. After filling petrol and while returning towards his unit at Bengal Engineering Group (BEG) Centre, Roorkee, he had travelled approximately 100 yards from the petrol pump when a truck bearing No.UA-S-4840, driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, 1 2025:UHC:11264 struck the appellant's motorcycle from behind. As a result of the impact, the appellant was thrown off the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. It is alleged that the appellant suffered fracture on the femur of the right leg and extensive tearing of flesh in the buttock region below the hip. He was initially admitted to Military Hospital, Roorkee, and subsequently treated at Military Hospital, Dehradun, Command Hospital, Lucknow and Base Hospital, Lucknow. According to the appellant, the injuries resulted in permanent disability rendering him unable to walk independently, perform daily activities, and adversely affected his service career. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged about 31 years and was serving as a Hawaldar in the Indian Army. An FIR was lodged on 09.12.2008 at Kotwali Roorkee under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 IPC. On the basis of these averments, the appellant filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.127 of 2009 seeking compensation to the tune of ₹39,35,000/- along with interest, asserting that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 and that the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3.

3. In the claim petition, the appellant pleaded that the accident resulted in his permanent disability and loss of promotional avenues, increments, and future pensionary benefits. It was asserted that though medical treatment was provided by the Army, the functional disability and its impact on service prospects constituted compensable loss under the Act of 1988. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach and ignored settled principles governing compensation for permanent disability. It is argued that compensation under the Act of 1988 is not confined to immediate loss of income but extends to loss of amenities, pain and suffering, and 2 2025:UHC:11264 impairment of future prospects. The Tribunal therefore, erred in discarding the disability certificate and in failing to consider functional disability vis-à-vis the nature of military service.

4. It was further submitted by the appellant that his inability to earn promotions and consequential reduction in pension benefits constitute real and compensable loss which the Tribunal failed to assess.

5. The respondent no.3 (Insurance Company) denied the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that in the claim case filed by the petitioner, the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration number 20AJO-1614 and the insurance company of motorcycle were not impleaded as parties. For this reason, the claim petition is vitiated for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further stated that the petitioner did not suffer any injury in the alleged accident, and the income and age of the injured were denied. The claim petition was also not presented in the prescribed format. It was further contended that the amount of compensation claimed in the petition was highly exaggerated without any proper basis. It was alleged that at the time of the purported accident, the vehicle owner did not possess valid documents such as vehicle registration, fitness certificate, permit, etc., and the vehicle driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence. For these reasons, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

08, at about 2:00 pm, at a distance of 100 yards 3 2025:UHC:11264 from Patrol Pump SDM Chowk, Roorkee, in Thana Kotwali, Roorkee, the driver of the truck no.-Tank no.-UA-S-4840, while driving the said truck rashly and carelessly, hit the petitioner's motorcycle no.-RJ-20 SE-1614 Bajaj Platina from behind, due to which the petitioner fell down and got seriously injured, in which the femur bone of his right leg got broken and the flesh got torn?

2. Whether the petition is vitiated by the defect of not making the insurance company and the owner of the motor cycle as parties, as mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the additional pleas of written statement of opposite party No. 3?

3. Whether at the time of the accident, vehicle No. UA-S-4840 was not being driven with valid documents and valid driving license and was being driven in contravention of the terms of insurance as mentioned in Para-6 of the additional pleas of written statement of Opposite Party No. 3?

4. How much compensation is the petitioner entitled to and from which opponent?

While deciding Issue No.1, the Tribunal relied upon the oral testimony of PW-1 Ramrakh Bishnoi, PW-2 Mangeram, an independent eyewitness, and documentary evidence including FIR and charge sheet. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. UA-S-4840 and that the appellant sustained grievous injuries as alleged. Issue No.1 was accordingly decided in favour of the appellant.

On Issue No.2, the Tribunal rejected the objection regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, holding that the 4 2025:UHC:11264 insurance company and owner of the appellant's motorcycle were not necessary parties since the accident was caused by the offending truck. Issue No.2 was decided against the insurance company.

On Issue No.3, the Tribunal held that the insurance company failed to prove breach of policy conditions by admissible evidence. The documents relied upon were photocopies and were held inadmissible. Consequently, Issue No.3 was decided against the insurer.

However, while deciding Issue No.4 relating to compensation, the Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove permanent disability in accordance with law and further observed that the appellant continued in service, received full salary, medical expenses were borne by the department, and there was no proven loss of income. On these grounds, the Tribunal declined to award any compensation and dismissed the claim petition.

7. Having heard the contentions of the rival parties and after perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the denial of compensation by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The production of the original disability certificate before this Court, duly taken on record under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C . 1908, conclusively establishes permanent disability to the extent of 62%. The absence of the original certificate before the Tribunal having been cured, the appellant's entitlement to compensation must be assessed in accordance with settled legal principles.

8. The appellant was serving as a Hawaldar in the Indian Army and was aged about 31 years at the time of the accident. In the case of personnel belonging to the 5 2025:UHC:11264 armed forces, permanent physical disability involving the lower limb has a direct bearing on functional efficiency, mobility, promotional avenues and future earning capacity. In such circumstances, the percentage of permanent disability can safely be treated as the percentage of loss of earning capacity.

9. Applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC reported in ( 2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, compensation is required to be computed in a structured and rational manner. The annual income of the appellant at the time of the accident stood at ₹2,28,000/-. Applying the disability of 62 percent, the annual loss of earning capacity comes to ₹1,41,360/-. The appropriate multiplier for the age of 31 years is 16. Applying the said multiplier, the loss of future earning capacity works out to ₹22,61,760/-.

10. Apart from loss of future income, the appellant is entitled to compensation under non-pecuniary heads. Considering the nature of injuries, fracture of the femur, prolonged treatment and permanent impairment affecting the quality of life, a sum of ₹1,50,000/- is awarded towards pain, suffering and trauma and a further sum of ₹1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. The claim for a separate amount under the head of "bodily injuries" is declined, as the physical impact of injuries is adequately compensated under the aforesaid heads and any further award would result in duplication.

11. Although the appellant received medical treatment in military hospitals without direct expenditure, it cannot be overlooked that prolonged treatment inevitably involves incidental expenses, follow-up care, medicines not 6 2025:UHC:11264 supplied by the hospital, conveyance and attendant assistance. In such circumstances, and in keeping with the principle of awarding just compensation, a sum of ₹50,000/- is awarded towards medical and incidental expenses. In addition, a sum of ₹30,000/- is awarded towards special diet required during the period of recovery. The appellant is also entitled to compensation for damage caused to the motorcycle in the accident, which is assessed at ₹15,000/-.

12. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellant is computed as follows: ₹22,61,760/- towards loss of future earning capacity; ₹1,50,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma; ₹1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life; ₹50,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses; ₹30,000/- towards special diet; and ₹15,000/- towards damage to the motorcycle. The total compensation thus comes to ₹25,56,760/-.

13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is held entitled to compensation of ₹25,56,760/- along with interest at the rate of 50% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The liability to satisfy the award shall remain upon the respondent no.3 - Insurance Company. The entire amount of compensation, so awarded, needs to be deposited with the claim Tribunal concerned along with entire interest as awarded within two months from today.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.12.2025 SK 7