The main legal point established is the assessment of compensation for permanent disability and loss of future earning capacity under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 11th May, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.21/NL/2 of 2007, titled Sadh Ram Chandel vs. Sanjay Rao and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,52,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award).

2. The owner/insured, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the claimant/injured has challenged the impugned award by the medium of instant appeal, on the sole ground that the compensation awarded is meager.

4. Thus, the only question needs to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is adequate or inadequate, meaning thereby that this Court has to return the findings on the point whether the amount of compensation is just in terms of the mandate of Sections 166, read with Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the M.V. Act).

5. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/injured became victim of vehicular accident, which was caused by Ramesh Kumar, driver, (respondent No.2), while driving tanker bearing No.HP-23-2500 rashly and negligently on 1st February, 2007. The offending vehicle hit the motorcycle, on which the claimant was traveling, near Chaudhari Dhaba, Dattowal, Nalagarh. In regard to the accident, FIR bearing No.38/07, dated 1st February, 2007, was also registered at Police Station Nalagarh under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. After the accident, the injured was taken to the hospital, Nalagarh, from where was shifted to Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir, remained admitted for two months and suffered permanent disability, which was assessed to the extent of 80%. Thus, the injured claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, particularly, in paragraphs 13, 21 and 22.

6. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents, by filing replies.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries on account of rash/negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.2? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the accident has taken place due to negligence of the petitioner himself? OPR-1 & 2

4. Whether the respondent No.2 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and proper documents? OPR-3

5. Relief.”

8. The findings returned on issues No.1, 3 and 4 are not in dispute. Accordingly, the same are upheld. It is also not in dispute as to who is liable to pay the compensation, since the Tribunal has saddled the insurer with the liability and the insurer has not questioned the same, thus, it has to satisfy the award. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No.2 to that extent are upheld.

9. Now what remains to be determined in the instant appeal is - to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to?

10. The claimant has specifically pleaded in the Claim Petition that he remained admitted in the hospital for a period of two months and had to spend Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, granted Rs.50,000/- under the said heads in lump sum. No doubt, the claimant has placed on record various medical bills and other documents to show that he was entitled to more than Rs.50,000/- under the said heads, but the said bills were never proved by the claimant. Thus, I also deem it proper to hold that Rs.50,000/- can be said to be just amount under the s