ORDER :

1. In an injury case, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, awarded a compensation amount of Rs.7,64,500/- to the claimant-respondent No.1 alongwith interest @ Rs.7.5% from the date of filing of petition till its realization. This award has been assailed by the insurance company on the ground of being perverse, contrary to the evidence on record and not in consonance with law.

2. Facts

2(i) Respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the grant of compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- from the respondents. Claimant-respondent No.1 submitted in the claim petition that she was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.HP-48-3321 on 14.08.2009 and was going from Salooni to Chamba. The bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver-respondent No.3. Because of his negligent driving, an accident occurred, wherein she sustained grievous injurious in her left leg. She was taken to the Regional Hospital Chamba for treatment from where she was referred to Dr. RPGMC Tanda. She remained admitted in the medical college & hospital Tanda from 15.08.2009 to 29.09.2009 and thereafter again from 12.02.2010 to 16.02.2010. She has been assessed to be suffering from 70% permanent disability in relation to injuries suffered by her in the accident. The claimants asserted that her age was 34 years at the time of accident. She was a house-wife, agriculturist and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month.

2(ii) Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide impugned award dated 30.05.2013 held that claimant-respondent No.1 sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by respondent No.3.

The issue of accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by respondent No.3 has attained finality. The findings of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in this regard as given in various other awards arising out of the accident in question have been upheld by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.256/2010 titled Oriental Insurance Compnay Vs. Smt. Indiro & Others [(2015) 3 Him L.R. 1677] alongwith other connected cases decided on 19.06.2015. In the instant case the award has been impugned on grounds pertaining to quantum of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal.

3. I have heard Mr. G.C. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Meera Devi, learned counsel, for the appellant, Mr. Parveen Chauhan, learned counsel and Mr. Ashir Kaith, learned vice counsel, for respondents No.1 and 2, respectively and have also gone through the record of the case.

4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned award deserves to be set aside for the following reasons:-

4(a) Learned Tribunal below has held the claimant respondent No.1 entitled to following amounts of compensation under different heads;- (i) compensation for loss of earning for 15 days when the petitioner remained admitted in the hospital: Rs.1500/- (ii) loss of future income: Rs.4,03,000/- (iii) compensation on account of medicines: Rs.50,000/- (iv) compensation on account of attendant charges: Rs.5,000/- (v) compensation on account of special diet charges: Rs.5,000/- (vi) compensation on account of pain and sufferings: Rs.1,50,000/- (vii) compensation for loss of amenities of life: Rs.1,50,000/-. Total amount of compensation: Rs.7,64,500/-.

In allowing claimant-respondent No.1 the above compensation amount, the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal is as under:-

“28. However, taking into consideration the evidence of the petitioner and the fact that her age at the time of accident was 34 years, her multifarious services for managing the entire family being a house wife, even on a modest estimation,it can safely be held that the petitioner income from all sources at the relevant time was approximately Rs.3000/- per month or say Rs.36,000/- per annum.

29. Dr. Prashant Rana PW-2 has proved the disability certificate Ex.PW2/A which shows that the petitioner locomot