Temporary bodily injuries warrant compensation even without proof of permanent disability.

On 15 July 1996, the appellant was injured while travelling in a jeep that was struck by a Tempo Trax.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the Tempo Trax driver negligent but dismissed the claim because it considered the injuries insufficiently proved and found no permanent disability.

The appellant relied on a medical certificate recording a sutured head wound, contusions and an abrasion, and on evidence of treatment and expenses; the bills produced totalled Rs. 1,591.35.

She appealed the dismissal.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition entirely despite its finding that the Tempo Trax driver was negligent.

2. Whether compensation for bodily injury could be awarded without proof of permanent disability.

Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers Claims Tribunals to inquire into claims arising from bodily injury caused by the use of a motor vehicle; bodily injury may be temporary or permanent.

Sections 140 and 142, as applicable at the time, concerned no-fault liability and specified categories of permanent disablement, respectively; the Court noted that the appellant did not establish permanent disablement within Section 142.

In assessing damages, the Court relied on *R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.*, identifying pecuniary damages, such as expenses and loss of earnings, and non-pecuniary damages, such as pain and suffering.

Proof of disability may be necessary to assess disability-related loss of income, but it is not a prerequisite to compensation for established bodily injury.

The Tribunal’s finding of negligence was supported by the evidence and was not open to challenge in the claimant’s appeal.

The medical certificate, which was not challenged in cross-examination, described a sutured lacerated wound to the occipital region, with additional contusions and an abrasion; the Court also noted that the appellant could not attend her normal duties for about a month.

These facts established bodily injury within Section 165, even without proof of permanent disability.

Although the evidence did not establish the claimed Rs. 5,000 in expenses or support a disability-based loss-of-income award, the Court held that compensation was nonetheless due for the injury and associated pain and suffering.

Respondents 1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 25,000, with interest at 7.5% from the date of the claim petition until realization, within eight weeks.