SANDEEP SHARMA,J. - (1.) By way of appeal at hand, appellant has challenged award dated 27.10.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 4, Shimla in MAC Petition RBT No. 96S/2 of 2014/11 titled Master Ritik Verma v. Smt. Sunita Kashyap and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,62,000//has been awarded in favour of the claimantappellant(hereinafter, 'claimant') and against respondent No. 3 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter, 'Insurance Company') with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization of the entire amount, on the ground of inadequacy.
(2.) Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it may be noticed that neither the insurance company (respondent No. 3) nor owner and driver of the vehicle i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2, who have been held liable, jointly and severally, to pay amount of compensation, have questioned the impugned award on any ground, as such, same has attained finality qua them. It is further worthwhile to mention that even aforesaid respondents have not filed crossobjections to the appeal and as such only question which needs to be determined in the appeal at hand is whether compensation awarded is adequate or not?
(3.) In nutshell, the facts for having bird's eye view, are that appellantinjured Master Ritik, who was studying in 4th standard, unfortunately met with an accident on 4.6.2010 while he was going for Bhandara in temple alongwith other school children. Respondent No. 2, while driving the vehicle bearing registration No. HP52A2958, Santro car, in a rash and negligent manner, came on wrong side of the road and hit Ritik, causing multiple injuries on the body and fracture in right leg and right foot was also crushed under the vehicle. An FIR about the incident was registered at Police Station, Dhalli vide FIR No. 99 dated 4.6.2010 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Injured remained admitted in the hospital with effect from 4.6.2010 to 1.7.2010 on account of injuries suffered by him. He suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% as per Exhibit PW3/ A. On account of the aforesaid injury suffered by the appellant, he preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/. Claimant claimed that till the filing of the petition, he spent Rs. 85,000/- on medicines and other expenses incurred outside the home and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for special diet as advised by the doctor and Rs. 12,000/- for petrol used in the vehicle for visiting the hospital. Claimant also claimed that he was unable to perform his day to day routine work on account of injury suffered by him and was attended upon by an attendant, on account of which, he paid Rs. 6,000/- to the attendant. Claimant prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.;