ORDER :

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the award dated 21.3.2017 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.72 of 2016 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are that at the time of accident, the Appellant/claimant was aged about 62 years and was working as an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department in Raipur Institute of Technology, Raipur. On 28.9.2015 at about 7:30 a.m., when the Appellant was standing near the traffic signal Telibandha, Raipur for going to Raipur City, Respondent 1/driver of the offending truck bearing registration No.CG 04 JD 3831 by driving the truck rashly and negligently dashed the Appellant/claimant. As a result of the accident, the Appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries on various parts of his body. Respondent 2 was the registered owner of the offending truck and the truck was insured with Respondent 3. After the accident, the Appellant was hospitalised for treatment for about 1½ months. During the treatment, his left leg was operated and amputated from above the knee. As per his disability certificate, the Appellant has sustained 80% permanent disability. He has not recovered fully and is still not able to do his daily routine work and is facing great hardship in walking, sitting, standing and in his work of teaching. At the time of accident, he was earning Rs.40,000 per month from his work of teaching as an Assistant Professor. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.31,50,000. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned award of Rs.7,00,000 in his favour. Hence, the instant appeal by him for enhancement of the compensation.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the evidence adduced by the Appellant/claimant in proper manner as the left leg was amputated from above the knee. The Appellant is unable to do his daily routine work. He is facing great hardship in walking, sitting, standing and also in his work of teaching. The Tribunal has also grossly erred in not accepting and considering the disability certificate in proper manner. The Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant is still taking treatment and facing great problems in his day to day life because of the injuries sustained. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs.7,00,000 and out of that amount, Rs.6,61,485 is for the medical expenses and the Tribunal has only granted Rs.38,515 for pain and suffering etc. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under various heads, e.g., for special/nutritious diet, for future treatment, for loss of income during treatment, for loss of future income and for transportation charges. Therefore, it was prayed by the Learned Counsel that the compensation may be enhanced suitably. Reliance was placed on 2011 (III) DMP 493 (SC) (Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance Company Limited), 2011 (III) DMP 103 (SC) (Sri Kumaresh v. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.), (2014) 2 SCC 735 (Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited) and (2020) 4 SCC 413 (Kajal v. Jagdish Chand).

4. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent 3/insurance company opposed the arguments raised on behalf of the Appellant/claimant. It was argued that considering the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. From the evidence, it is established that though the Appellant/claimant has got permanent disability of 80%, it was only for amputated leg not for the whole body. From the admissions made by the Appellant/claimant, it is also clear that the Appellant is still doing his job and also doing his other routine work as earlier. Therefore, he is not entitled to get any amount for loss of his future