JUDGMENT : Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—This appeal depicts a sordid tale of victim of a motor accident and the gory tragedy which has made his life so miserable that virtually it is reduced as a vegetative life. 2. Appellant has laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, ‘Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation quantified and awarded by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4 (MACT Cases), Jodhpur, by its judgment and award dated 11th of August 2010. 3. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that on 14th July 2001 when appellant was returning back with his friends Girish and Sumit from BJS colony on bicycle after attending his tuition classes, and proceeding towards his house, on the road Paota-BJS Colony, Jeep No.RJ-19-1C-4848 collided with the bicycle. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep by its driver first respondent. Due to fast speed of the Jeep, it ran over the back of appellant and he suffered grave and serious injuries. Attributing the cause of accident to the driver of the offending vehicle jeep, appellant preferred claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act of 1940 and claimed total amount of compensation amounting to Rs.1,08,63,000 under different heads. 4. The claim petition was contested by all the respondents. 5. On behalf of respondent No.1 & 2, a joint reply was submitted and the facts averred in the claim petition were refuted. As a matter of fact, respondent No.1 & 2 have outrightly denied the occurrence of accident on the fateful day and some motive was attributed to the appellant that he has concocted the entire story about accident. The respondent insurer also joined the issue and submitted its reply. While denying the averments in want of knowledge, the insurance company has also averred that the owner of vehicle has not divulged information about the accident, nor the requisite documents were made available. That apart certain technical objections were also incorporated in the return by the insurance company seeking to absolve it from liability to pay compensation. 6. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, in all framed three issues for determination. 7. That apart certain technical objections were also incorporated in the return by the insurance company seeking to absolve it from liability to pay compensation. 6. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, in all framed three issues for determination. 7. For substantiating the claim, appellant himself appeared in the witness box and also examined two other witnesses; namely, AW1 Bhuvneshwar, and AW2 Anand Singh. Besides these witnesses, two doctors were also examined; namely, AW4 Dr. Sumnesh Mathur, and AW5 Dr. Kishore Ramchandani. The appellant has also produced the requisite documents including MRI Report, Disability certificate and the bills of medical expenses incurred by him for his treatment. The police documents were also produced and exhibited. In all, 159 documents were exhibited in support of claim by the appellant, which includes ticket for his journey to China for his future treatment. Against the oral and documentary evidence of appellant, on behalf of respondents three witnesses; namely NAW1 Devi Singh, NAW2 Rajendra Singh, and NAW3 Ravi Mehta were examined and 10 documents were produced which were exhibited. 8. After conclusion of evidence of the rival parties, the learned Tribunal heard final arguments and by its judgment and award dated 24th of August 2007 dismissed the claim petition of the appellant. Feeling disgruntled by the dismissal of claim petition, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as Civil Misc. Appeal No.2419 of 2007. The appeal was finally decided on 4th of November 2008 and the matter was remanded back for decision afresh. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 04.11.2008 is reproduced as under: “I have considered the contentions. In this case the learned tribunal has not properly enquired into the matter and without considering the material available on record, concluded Issue No.1 against the defendant. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion the finding on issue No.1 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. I have also considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of compensation. Though the learned tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.8,37,869/- but in this respect also evidence has not been appreciated properly. A huge amount has been spent under treatment and documents have been produced and exhibited but the learned tribunal has discarded some documents on baseless grounds. Though the learned tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.8,37,869/- but in this respect also evidence has not been appreciated properly. A huge amount has been spent under treatment and documents have been produced and exhibited but the learned tribunal has discarded some documents on baseless grounds. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the finding on issue No1 as well as on issue No.3, are not found sustainable, they deserved to be quashed. As the case is required to be afresh reconsidered and re-apprciated of material available on record and for that it is found just and proper to remit back the case to the concerned tribunal. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award is quashed and the matter is remanded back for afresh hearing. If any of the party move for additional evidence, the learned tribunal will sympathetically consider the application and will afford chance for producing evidence without delaying the matter will conclude the hearing expeditely. For appearance of the parties, next date before the learned Tribunal is fixed as 17.11.08. Notice will be issued to driver and owner of the jeep alone. No order as to costs.” 9. After remand, on behalf of appellant, one more witness PW6 Girish was examined and the claim was decided de-novo as per the directions of this Court. In its verdict dated 04.11.2008, the learned Tribunal, after examining the matter threadbare, decided Issue No.1 in favour of appellant and recorded a definite finding that accident was caused by the Driver of jeep by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Issue No.2, which was framed on the plea of insurance company, was decided against the insurer. While adverting to Issue No.3 relating to quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal by the impugned award quantified total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.12,43,270 under different heads. While awarding compensation, the learned Tribunal has determined a sum of Rupees one lac as compensation for future treatment of the appellant. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on all the respondents jointly and severally. 10. While awarding compensation, the learned Tribunal has determined a sum of Rupees one lac as compensation for future treatment of the appellant. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on all the respondents jointly and severally. 10. In the present appeal, precisely, for claiming enhancement of the quantum of compensation, the appellant has pleaded that he was a brilliant student and was studying Senior Secondary (Science–Maths) and preparing for competitive examinations of IIT and RPET but this accident has belied all his hopes as he has been incapacitated and is cent percent handicapped now. In totality, while assailing the impugned award for granting inadequate compensation, the appellant has also pleaded for enhancement of compensation for his future treatment from Beijing Xishan Institute for Neuroregeneration and Functional Recovery in Shijingshan District, Beijing, China and estimated expenditure for treatment is also claimed as 58,000 US Dollars. 11. During pendency of this appeal, on behalf of appellant an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for producing additional evidence bearing IA No.13027/2012 is also laid. With the application, certain documents showing treatment of the appellant are also produced. Alongwith the application, many documents were produced and a receipt dated 29th April 2011 of Beijing Xishan Institute for Neuroregeneration and Functional Recovery is also produced showing receipt of 4000 US Dollars and 39,000 RMB cash from the appellant. Discharge papers dated 25th May 2011 were also produced. The application submitted on behalf of the appellant is not formally contested by the respondents inasmuch as no reply to the application is submitted. 12. After considering the averments contained in the application and the additional documents produced with the application, in my opinion, the documents are subsequent to the passing of impugned award and therefore the appellant is well within his right to place these documents on record in the form of additional evidence. The additional documents sought to be produced by the appellant are having direct nexus with the claim of appellant and as such they are relevant and admissible in evidence. The language with which Rule 27 (1)(aa) is couched, makes it crystal clear that under the said provision additional evidence can also be produced even by a party who has not produced any evidence before the trial Court. The language with which Rule 27 (1)(aa) is couched, makes it crystal clear that under the said provision additional evidence can also be produced even by a party who has not produced any evidence before the trial Court. It may also be observed here that in the accidental claim cases strict rules of evidence are not applicable and the provisions under the Act of 1988 in this behalf being welfare legislation are to be construed liberally. The Court is expected to have a pragmatic view in these matters rather than an idealistic and pedantic approach while adjudicating such claims. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I feel persuaded to allow application of the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking additional evidence on record. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajvanshy has vehemently argued that looking to the gravity and magnitude of injuries suffered by the appellant, compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and the said amount is liable to be enhanced to meet the ends of justice. Mr. Rajvanshy would contend that the appellant has suffered 100% disablement and because of crushing injuries suffered on back his life has become miserable and he is being forced to have a vegetative life, a very vital fact, which has not been addressed by the learned Tribunal while assessing just compensation and therefore the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced reasonably to commensurate with the gravity of injuries suffered by the appellant and his total disability. Lastly, Mr. Rajvanshy has urged that the learned Tribunal while quantifying the amount of compensation for future treatment has not at all considered the disability of the appellant and the fact that he still needs specialized treatment, which may require huge expenditure. Mr. Rajvanshy submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for future treatment is a meagre sum and the same is liable to be enhanced to meet the total expected expenditure which the appellant is required to incur for his treatment. In support of his contentions, Mr. Rajvanshy has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary vs. E. Srinivas & Anr. ( (2013) 12 SCC 455 ). In this verdict, Hon’ble Apex Court, while relying on its earlier decisions, enhanced the amount of compensation and also awarded compensation for future treatment. In support of his contentions, Mr. Rajvanshy has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary vs. E. Srinivas & Anr. ( (2013) 12 SCC 455 ). In this verdict, Hon’ble Apex Court, while relying on its earlier decisions, enhanced the amount of compensation and also awarded compensation for future treatment. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under: The Court also referred to the judgments in Ward vs. James (1965) 1 All ER 563 (CA), R.D.Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 , Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1 , Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422 , Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 , Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 and enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,89,440/- to Rs.6 lakhs. The factual matrix of that case and the factors considered by this Court for awarding enhanced compensation to the appellant in that case are contained in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the judgment, which are reproduced below: 17. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant had produced substantive evidence to prove that as a result of the accident he had suffered 8 grievous injuries including fracture of pelvis and he had to remain in the hospital for one month and a half; that he was treated by Dr. Anil K. Bhat, Assistant Professor, Orthopaedics and Dr. Joseph Thomas, Professor of Urology and that on account of grievous injuries he was unable to continue his studies. In his deposition, Dr. Joseph Thomas categorically stated that the appellant will have to undertake life-long treatment for recurrence of urethral strictures and consequential dysfunction due to fracture of pelvis. Unfortunately, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court adverted to this part of the evidence and omitted to award compensation for the expenses likely to be incurred by the appellant for future treatment. 18. One can reasonably expect that the appellant who was only 18 years old at the time of accident would live for at least next 50 years. The Tribunal awarded Rs 20,340 for expenses incurred by the appellant for treatment taken by him in the hospital. Although, Dr. 18. One can reasonably expect that the appellant who was only 18 years old at the time of accident would live for at least next 50 years. The Tribunal awarded Rs 20,340 for expenses incurred by the appellant for treatment taken by him in the hospital. Although, Dr. Thomas did not indicate the approximate expenditure likely to be incurred by the appellant and his family for future treatment, keeping in view the nature of injuries and the fact that he will have to take treatment for the remaining life, it will be reasonable to infer that he will be required to spend a minimum of Rs 1000 per month for future treatment, which would necessarily include fees of the doctors, medicines, transportation, etc. In the absence of concrete evidence about the anticipated expenditure, we think that ends of justice will be met if the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs 2 lakhs which, if deposited in a fixed deposit, would earn an interest of Rs 14,000 to 16,000 per annum. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent insurer Mr. Manoj Bhandari submits that the learned Tribunal has examined the matter objectively and has awarded adequate sum for future treatment to the appellant which requires no enhancement. Learned counsel for the insurer while sympathizing with the appellant for his sufferance would contend that the amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable which warrants no interference in this appeal. Lastly, Mr. Bhandari submits that the enhancement of compensation claimed by the appellant for his future treatment is exorbitant and such enhancement is not desirable considering the gravity and magnitude of the injuries suffered by the appellant. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties, perused the impugned award and scanned the entire record of the learned Tribunal as well as the additional evidence produced by the appellant. 16. Although appellant has canvassed vociferously for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal but the pivotal issue, in my opinion, in the instant appeal, which needs to be addressed, relates to future medical expenditure for treatment of the appellant. The concern of the Court is to see what would be a just compensation under this head. The expression “just compensation” relating to compensation under the Act of 1988, means that it should be neither arbitrary or fanciful, nor unjustifiable from the evidence. The concern of the Court is to see what would be a just compensation under this head. The expression “just compensation” relating to compensation under the Act of 1988, means that it should be neither arbitrary or fanciful, nor unjustifiable from the evidence. The compensation must be just and the same should not be a pittance. From the materials available on record and the additional evidence tendered by the appellant, there remains no shadow of doubt that the injuries suffered by him due to accident are of grave and serious nature and its ill-effects on his future life uptil his survival is clearly apparent. The cent percent disability suffered by the appellant has virtually reduced his life as a vegetative life, which has not only dashed all his future hopes but has also made life of his parents miserable. Such suffering of a son for his parents is unbearable and agonizing. Human life is very precious and life of only son of the parents is all the more precious and therefore the parents of the appellant cannot afford to leave him in lurch without any treatment. Parents of a victim are always hopeful that by expertise treatment there is every possibility that he may recover to resume life of a normal human being. In the instant case, efforts are being made for the treatment of the appellant and for his specialized treatment at Beijing, appellant’s parents have managed requisite funds with their limited resources. 17. Factually, it is not in dispute that this sort of situation arose because of the motor accident caused by the offending vehicle by crushing the hapless victim like the appellant. Justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas jus suum cuique tribuendi, i.e. justice is the constant and perpetual deposition or will of giving to everyone his due, can very well be invoked in the instant case for doing substantial justice. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. ( (2009) 6 SCC 1 21) held that compensation awarded by a Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. ( (2009) 6 SCC 1 21) held that compensation awarded by a Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. “Just Compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong as far as money can do, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. Reliance can be profitably made in this behalf on the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors. ( (2009) 6 SCC 1 ). 88. We must emphasize that the Court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the Court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The "adequate compensation" that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of the thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. 89. It must also be borne in mind that life has its pitfalls and is not smooth sailing all along the way (as a claimant would have us believe) as the hiccups that invariably come about cannot be visualized. Life it is said is akin to a ride on a roller coaster where a meteoric rise is often followed by an equally spectacular fall, and the distance between the two (as in this very case) is a minute or a yard. 90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress, vis-à-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity. 91. We can also visualize the anxiety of the complainant and his parents for the future after the latter, as must all of us, inevitably fade away. We, have, therefore computed the compensation keeping in mind that his brilliant career has been cut short and there is, as of now, no possibility of improvement in his condition, the compensation will ensure a steady and reasonable income to him for a time when he is unable to earn for himself. 92. Mr. Tandale, the learned counsel for the respondent has, further, submitted that the proper method for determining compensation would be the multiplier method. We find absolutely no merit in this plea. The kind of damage that the complainant has suffered, the expenditure that he has incurred and is likely to incur in the future and the possibility that his rise in his chosen field would now be restricted, are matters which cannot be taken care of under the multiplier method. 18. The emphasis under Section 168 of the Act of 1988 is to award just compensation sans niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. Therefore, for quantifying just compensation no method of calculation of compensation would be justified if it does not result in awarding the amount which is not “just” looking to the peculiar facts of a case. The umpteen material available on record, which was part and parcel of the record of the Tribunal and which is in the form of additional evidence tendered by the appellant before this Court, has persuaded this Court for reassessment of the amount of compensation awarded under the head of “future medical treatment expenses”. The umpteen material available on record, which was part and parcel of the record of the Tribunal and which is in the form of additional evidence tendered by the appellant before this Court, has persuaded this Court for reassessment of the amount of compensation awarded under the head of “future medical treatment expenses”. Although while allowing the application under Section 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking additional evidence on record, normally the Court can remand the matter back for consideration of additional evidence and the decision afresh but looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case and the fact that poor victim appellant is languishing for his life, I deem it just and appropriate to adjudicate the issue in this appeal to mitigate the hardship of the victim’s family. As the facts of the case are so glaring and the appellant is under treatment, remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for its decision afresh may not be conducive and it would unnecessarily delay the process of fresh adjudication. To abate the agony of the appellant and his parents, I feel persuaded to decide the appeal on merits in the light of available material and additional evidence taken on record. Therefore, in totality, taking into account umpteen materials available on record and clinching additional evidence supporting the cause of the appellant, I feel persuaded to allow this appeal to the extent of enhancing the amount of compensation for future medical treatment and expenses. Thus, explicating the facts with objectivity that appellant’s future treatment is to be carried out at Beijing, for which estimated expenditure is likely to be handsome and may go upto 58,000 US Dollars, a benevolent view is need of the hour to meet the ends of justice. As such, considering the ratio decidendi of the verdicts of Hon’ble Apex Court in G. Ravindranath and Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (supra), the amount of compensation for future medical treatment awarded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award is liable to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.15 lacs to make total amount as Rs.16 lacs. The said amount would carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 19. The said amount would carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 19. The upshot of the above discussion is that instant appeal is allowed, the amount of compensation for future medical expenses and treatment of the appellant is enhanced by a sum of Rs.15 lacs and the appellant is declared entitled for enhanced amount of compensation Rs.15 lacs with interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation with interest. The enhanced amount of compensation may be paid to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.