The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of functional disability and the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The present appeal preferred by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeks to assail the award dated 26.07.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MACP No.1546/2016 insofar as it relates to the quantum of compensation.

2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has, after taking into account that the appellant is suffering from 100% permanent physical disability, as a result of the injuries sustained by him on account of the accident with the insured vehicle, has awarded him compensation of a sum of Rs.19,98,000/- along with interest @9%. The said compensation has been awarded under the following heads:

3. In so far as the factual matrix of the matter is concerned, the parties are ad idem that the accident took place on 16.03.2012 on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle. When the fateful accident took place, the appellant was about 51 years of age and his annual income, after making deductions towards the income tax, was found to be Rs.1,90,424/- and, accordingly, his monthly income was assessed as Rs.15,868/-. It is also undisputed that the learned Tribunal has accepted that on account of the injuries suffered by him, the appellant requires the constant assistance of an attendant as he cannot even move on his own. Despite the physical disability of the appellant having been accepted as 100%, the learned Tribunal has taken his functional disability as 50% and accordingly granted him compensation towards "Loss of Future Income/prospect" by taking into account 50% of his monthly income. Furthermore, as against his claim for `Attendant Charges' for life, the learned Tribunal has awarded the appellant `Attendant Charges" only for a period of one year. Being aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. In support of the appeal, Mr.Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant has raised four grounds. The first and foremost being that once it was undisputed that on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant, he had become completely bed-ridden and does not even have control on his bowel movement, his functional disability ought to have been taken as 100% instead of 50%, as taken under the impugned award.

5. Mr.Parashar next contends that the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding `Attendant Charges' only for a period of one year without appreciating the fact that, in view of the appellant's medical condition, he will require an attendant throughout his life. In support of his plea, that the amount towards payment of `Attendant Charges' should be enhanced he relies on a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MAC.APP. 1015/2018, [Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Avtar Singh & Ors.] wherein a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded towards "Attendant Charges".

6. He next submits that, taking into account the appellant's condition, even the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- granted towards "Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities" was highly inadequate and similarly the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- granted towards "Pain & sufferings" was also inadequate.

7. On the other hand, Mr.Nandwani, learned counsel for the respondents, supports the impugned award by submitting that it is settled law that the permanent disability of a part of the body need not be treated as functional disability for assessing the loss of future income. He, therefore, contends that the learned Tribunal, by taking into account relevant facts, was justified i