JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. G.C. Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company and Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimant. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated 23.05.2017 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge- cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deoghar in Motor Accident Claim Case No.18 of 2015, the present application has been preferred by the appellant/ Oriental Insurance Company. 3. The claim petition was filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the wife of the injured namely, Mithun Kumar Pandit. The respondent no.2 filed the said application stating that one Sohan Pandit has lodged the fardbeyan at Sadar Hospital at Deoghar on 02.05.2014 at 12.15 p.m stating that he is admitted in Sadar Hospital, Deoghar at bed no.6 and further stated that on 01.05.2014 that his wife was referred to Sadar Hospital at Deoghar for better treatment because she was suffering from serious headache and on that day she was coming from Bolero Jeep of which the number was not known to him and just he has come forward about 04 Kilometers from Sarath. It was about 5 O’clock of the morning hours, the driver of Bolero Jeep had stopped the vehicle by the side of the road and was removing some mechanical problems and in the meantime, a Tata Sumo Jeep coming from opposite direction in a rash and negligent speed dashed against the standing Bolero vehicle in which this informant was sitting. By this accident this informant along with his four family members become seriously injured and nearby persons assembled there and by an ambulance he was brought to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar where he had been admitted and he is under treatment and pursuant to that, Sarath Mudhupur Sarath P.S.Case No.42 of 2014 dated 05.05.2014 was registered against the driver of Tata Sumo Jeep bearing registration no.JH04G8398 and after investigation the police submitted charge sheet against Anwar Ansari the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.JH 04G 8398 and thereafter the cognizance was taken. It was stated that injured Mithun Kumar Pandit received head injury, the injury in his chest which was such a serious injuries that his both legs have been fractured, the bone of his waist has been fractured, the bone of his mandible has also been fractured. It was stated that injured Mithun Kumar Pandit received head injury, the injury in his chest which was such a serious injuries that his both legs have been fractured, the bone of his waist has been fractured, the bone of his mandible has also been fractured. He was treated at several sophisticated hospital however the ailment has not been cured. It was stated that Mithun Kumar Pandit moves on wheel chair and he has not been able to do any work and even the daily routine work, he was not able to do. 4. The learned Tribunal has framed the issues and considering the documents as well as the oral evidence has passed the award directing the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.32,54,260/- and interest @ 7.5% quarterly compoundable to claimant in compensation for the injuries caused to Mithun Kumar Pandit and further directed that 50% of the total amount of compensation will be fixed in the fixed deposit in the name of the injured namely, Mithun Kumar Pandit for a period of ten years in any nationalized bank and rest of the amount was directed to be handed over to the claimant who is the wife of the injured to better look after of the said injured. Aggrieved with this, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. G.C. Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Oriental insurance company at the outset submits that the injured was alive and in view of that, the claim application by his wife is not maintainable and he refers to section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly, sub-section (a) and (e) of the said section of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He draws the attention of the two orders passed by the coordinating Bench of this Court in the present appeal order dated 28.11.2017 and 04.05.2022 and submits that considering this aspect of the matter observation is there as to how the appeal is maintainable by the wife under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly relied in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 and he distinguishes the said order by way of placing reliance on paragraph nos.17, 18 and 25 of the said judgment. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly relied in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 and he distinguishes the said order by way of placing reliance on paragraph nos.17, 18 and 25 of the said judgment. He further submits that the disability was only 60 % whereas the learned court has treated as 100%. He further submits that in absence of any documentary evidence Rs.10,000/- of the income found by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law. He submits that in view of the several judgments, the income was required to be considered at Rs.3000/- as the injured was only a student of B.A. (Part-II) and was not doing any job. He submits that in absence of examination of the doctor, the learned court has come to 100% disability which is against the mandate of law and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Kanagasabapathy and Ors, 2003(1) JLJR 109 and on the same point he further relied in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Johan Sah @ Md. Johan and Others, 2001 2 JLJR 163 . He further submits that 7.5 % interest has been directed to be calculated quarterly compoundable which is against the mandate of law and on this ground, he submits that the Tribunal’s judgment/ award is bad in law and the same may kindly be quashed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/claimant draws the attention of the Court to several paragraphs of the judgment/ award of the learned Tribunal. By way of referring paragraph no.4 of the said judgment/award he submits that the learned court has taken note of fact that injured namely Mithun Kumar Pandit has been examined in so many sophisticated hospitals for saving his life. He submits that the learned court in that paragraph has considered the injury received by the injured. He submits that the document/Ext.5 was the certificate of disability issued by the office of the civil surgeon, Deoghar and considering that aspect of the matter and further considering in paragraph no.8 of the award, to the effect that Mithun Kumar Pandit was present in the court on wheel-chair and the court himself has looked at him and has come to the injury conclusion. He submits that so far as section 166 of the said Act is concerned, maintainability point has been decided in paragraph no.11 of the said judgment. He further submits that the learned court in paragraph no.12 of the judgment has rightly calculated the earning considering that the injured was earning Rs.10,000/- by way of tuition. He submits that 50% of the awarded amount has been directed to be fixed in the name of the injured and the rest amount was only directed to be received by the claimant as she is looking after her husband who is injured. He submits that the injury under motor vehicle accident was held undermine dignity of the individual which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the case of Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company and Another, (2023) 3 SCC 439 . Paragraph nos. 16 and 20 of the said judgment are quoted below: “16. It is further submitted that the appellant had been operated upon twice and has undergone a great deal of pain and suffering in lieu of the accident and has had to give up his vocation as a consequence of the grievous nature of the injuries sustained. This Court in [Ramesh v. Karan Singh, (2023) 11 SCC 801 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1239] dated 16-9-2022 was pleased to grant compensation to the tune of Rs 4,00,000 after taking notice of the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the said matter and taking into consideration that he had been operated upon 5 times. In light of the same, it would be reasonable to award compensation of Rs1,00,000 to the appellant under the head of pain and suffering. 20. It is pertinent to point out herein that the claim of the appellant claimant before the Tribunal was only Rs 25,00,000. However, it is submitted that this Court in [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523], and in [Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 756 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1095 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 108], had categorically stated that there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claim amount.” 7. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 756 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1095 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 108], had categorically stated that there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claim amount.” 7. By way of referring above judgment, he submits that even for pain and suffering the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the award of compensation. He submits that considering the injury in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation in spite of the fact that the claim was only made to the tune of Rs.25 lacs. By way of referring the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and Another [arising out of SLP (C) No.2873 of 2021], he submits that the medical expenses and the award was further enhanced in the said case and he refers to paragraph no.21 of the said judgment. On this ground he submits that there is no illegality in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. The Court has gone through the learned court record as well as the judgment/ award dated 23.05.2017. It is an admitted fact that the accident has taken place and the injured namely, Mithun Kumar Pandit received the disability which has been assessed by the office of the civil surgeon, Deoghar to that effect which has been marked as Ext.5. Looking to the award part, it appears that the insurance company has not objected to the said report of the civil surgeon. The first contention with regard to maintainability of the appeal filed by the appellant, it appears that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not define the expression ‘legal representative’ in section 166 of the said Act or any of the defining sub section (2) of the said Act. Therefore, the definition of ‘legal representative’ has provided in section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code has to be referred. Thus, a person, who in law, represents the estate of the deceased or a person who intermediates with the estate of the deceased, could be the legal representative of the deceased within the meaning of Motor Vehicle Act. In the case in hand, admittedly, the wife is the claimant of the injured and the wife is the first class legal heir/ successor of any person. In view of that, the first point of Mr. In the case in hand, admittedly, the wife is the claimant of the injured and the wife is the first class legal heir/ successor of any person. In view of that, the first point of Mr. Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ insurance company with regard to maintainability of the case filed by the wife is negated by this Court. 9. The second contention of Mr. Jha, the learned court for the appellant/ insurance company that the doctor has not been examined is concerned, the Court finds that strict rules of evidence cannot be made applicable in a case of this nature arising out of a beneficial legislation. Admittedly, the injured was examined in several hospitals and that aspect of the matter was considered by the Tribunal in paragraph no.4 of the judgment. It will be a travesty of justice if the victim is asked to present each and every doctor only to move the particular doctor had treated him and will result in defeating the object of Motor Vehicle Act mean to mitigate suffering of accident victim. The Court finds that there is no reason to disbelieve the document on record which is Ext.5 relied by the claimant. When the medical bills speak for themselves coupled with medical records, there is no room to doubt nature of treatment given and expenses incurred thereon and in view of that, those judgments relied by Mr. Jha, the learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company with regard to examination of the doctor is not tenable. Accordingly, the said contention of the appellant is not accepted by the Court. 10. The principle with regard to the loss is required to be considered and one aspect relates to impairment of person’s earning capacity while the other relates to pain or suffering due to loss of enjoyment of life caused by the disability. When victim suffers from temporary or permanent disability, the efforts must be made to award adequate compensation not only for physical injury but also for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earnings and the victim’s inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities. A reference may be made to the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 686 . Wherein at paragraph nos.8 to 10 it has been held as under: “8. A reference may be made to the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 686 . Wherein at paragraph nos.8 to 10 it has been held as under: “8. In arriving at the quantification of compensation, we must be guided by the well-settled principle that compensation can be granted both on account of permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, because one head relates to the impairment of the person's capacity and the other to the sphere of pain and suffering on account of loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. 9. In [Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 756 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1095 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 108], this Court held thus : (SCC p. 762, para 15) “15. The ratio of the abovenoted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.” 10. In [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422] this Court after referring to the pronouncements in [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250], [Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 688], [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 143 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1044], [Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258], [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] held thus : (Govind Yadav case],Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258], [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] held thus : (Govind Yadav case],Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422], SCC p. 693, para 18) “18. In our view, the principles laid down in [Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258] and [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.” These principles were reiterated in a judgment delivered by one of us (Justice Dipak Misra, as the learned Chief Justice then was) in [Subulaxmi v. T.N. STC, (2012) 10 SCC 177 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1100 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1]” 11. If the victim of accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should be there to make the award for adequate compensation not only for physical injury and treatment but also for loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The injured was a student of B.A. (Part-II) and he was giving tuitions and was earning Rs.10,000/- that was the finding of the learned Tribunal. The injured was a student of B.A. (Part-II) and he was giving tuitions and was earning Rs.10,000/- that was the finding of the learned Tribunal. Now-a-days, to earn a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of making tuition, cannot be ruled out considering the fact that many educational institutions either private coaching earning huge amount and middle class family depend upon the private tuition and a competent person by way of providing that tuition, earning of Rs.10,000/- cannot be ruled out. Thus, the third contention of the appellant /insurance company is also rejected. 12. The Court finds that the 50% of the awarded amount has been directed to be deposited in the form fixed deposit in favour of the injured and only 50% has been directed to be paid to the wife who is looking after the injured. In view of that also, the Court finds that there is no interference required. The direction of the award with regard to 50% of the total amount to be deposited in favour of the injured shall be completed and for that, the learned Tribunal will take action at the time of satisfying the award. 13. The Court finds that interest @7.5% quarterly compoundable is not in accordance with law and, accordingly, that part of the order is modified to the effect that the interest only @ 7.5 % per annum will be available. 14. Accordingly, the award dated 23.05.2017 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deoghar in Motor Accident Claim Case No.18 of 2015 is modified to the above extent only, and the Court has not interfered with the rest of the award which is kept intact. 15. The statutory amount deposited before this Court shall be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal and the same will be utilized in satisfying the award. 16. The learned Tribunal shall take efforts to satisfy the award within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 17. With the above modification in the award dated 23.05.2017 passed in M.V. Claim No.18 of 2015, the M.A. No.498 of 2017 is disposed of. 18. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. 19. Let the L.C.R be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.