The well-settled principles of motor accident compensation entitle claimants to compensation for various heads including pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and future medical treatment.

J.R. Midha, J.

The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 6,67,200/- has been awarded to respondent No. 1.

2. The accident dated 30th June, 1996 resulted in grievous injuries to respondent No. 1 and he has become paraplegic with permanent disability certified to be 90% as per Ex.PW-3/B. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,67,200/- towards the loss of income to the claimant. However, no compensation has been awarded for pain, suffering, loss of amenities of life, future medical treatment, etc.

3. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on various grounds:

(i) The claimant/respondent No. 1 having been prematurely retired on medical grounds is entitled to and is receiving invalid pension apart from benefits of gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, etc. received by him.

(ii) The claimant had 12 years service left with All India Radio and, therefore, the multiplier of 13 is not appropriate.

(iii) The amount awarded is highly excessive considering that the claimant was earning only Rs. 3,600/-.

(iv) The driver of the Government vehicle was not rash and negligent as he saved the precious life of a child and in the process hit the pavement.

4. The appellant's contention that the claimant has been prematurely retired on medical grounds and is receiving invalid pension, is not a ground for denying compensation to him. The claimant is entitled to compensation according to the well settled principles of motor accident compensation.

5. With respect to the contention of the appellant that the amount is excessive, this Court is of the view that the compensation is grossly inadequate. The learned Tribunal has only computed the loss of income and has not considered the other heads for award of compensation such as compensation for pain and suffering, compensation for loss of amenities of life, future medical treatment, etc. Even the compensation for loss of income is inadequate as the learned Tribunal has not taken the future prospects of the claimant into consideration.

6. With respect to the contention of the appellant that the driver of the Government vehicle was not rash and negligent as he saved the precious life of the child and in the process hit the pavement, the evidence on record is contrary and clearly points out to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the Government vehicle. In fact/the accident has been admitted by the driver of the Government vehicle. It is also admitted that the Government vehicle did hit the patri. However, the explanation given that the claimant lost his balance and fell along with other cyclists has been rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal because the injuries are so serious and the claimant's spine got fractured at so many places that it was not possible by simple fall by entanglement of the cycles. The statement of the driver that the Government vehicle did not touch the cycle is not supported by the evidence which points out to the contrary. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Government vehicle is upheld.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The claimant has filed the cross-objections before this Court for enhancement of the compensation. The claimant has also led additional evidence in support of the cross-objections.

8. The claimant was admitted in BLK Memorial Hospital, Pusa Road, New Delhi on 13th May, 2009 and remained there till 15th May, 2009. The hospital has carried out various tests including Blood Test, X-Ray Cervical Spine, MRI Cervical Spine, MRI Dorsal Spine and the claimant has been examined by various doctors including Dr. Suneel Kumar, Head of the Department, Orthopedic Surgery who appeared in the witness box as PW-1 before this Court and was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

9. The report of Dr. Suneel Kumar along with the complete record of the patient in BLK Memorial Hospital has been exhi