IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation in injury cases, considering factors such as permanent disability, loss of future earnings, pain and sufferings, and loss of comfort and amenities.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

Since both these petitions are offshoots of impugned award dated 06.06.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 32-S/2 of 2011, they are taken up together for adjudication.

FAO No. 20 of 2014

2. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Insurer”), under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for short “the Act”), against the award, dated 06.06.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 32-S/2 of 2011, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/claimant, who is respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 20 of2014 and appellant in FAO No. 36 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”), seeking compensation, was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,96,694/- to the petitioner.

FAO No. 36 of 2014

3. On the other hand, the instant petition (FOA No. 36 of 2014) has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 173 of the Act against the award dated 06.06.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 32-S/2 of 2011, whereby the claim petition filed by him was allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.8,96,694/- in his favour alongwith interest @ 7% per annum, with a prayer to allow his appeal throughout with costs, by modifying the award and consequently awarding a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, as claimed by him in his claim petition.

4. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the petitioner, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act against the respondents, i.e., Ms. Meridian Medicare Ltd. Shamti, Shri Devender Kumar and United Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”), whereby compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 21.06.2011, on National Highway-22, at place Din Raat Dhaba near Kumarhatti, was sought.

5. As per the petitioner/claimant, on 21.06.2011 he was travelling as a pillion rider on scooter No. HP-14-6940 and around 06:40 p.m., when the scooter reached near place Din Raat Dhaba on National Highway-22, near Kumarhatti, Innova Car, bearing registration No. HP-14A-5170 came from Kumarhatti side, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed by Devender Kumar, respondent No. 2, before the learned Tribunal below (respondent No. 3 in FAO No. 20 of 2014). The respondent No. 2 could not control his vehicle and the vehicle struck against the scooter No. HP-14-6940. It was further averred by the petitioner that due to the accident, he suffered grievous injuries and also suffered fracture of the right leg. He was taken to Solan hospital for first aid and he was referred to Chandigarh and then he was got treated at Cheema Medical Hospital, Mohali, where he remained admitted upto 27.06.2011. It was averred that the petitioner had to spend approximately Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment and had sustained pain and agony due to the accident. The petitioner had to go for periodical checkups time and again to Cheema Medical Hospital, Mohali, and one permanent attendant was required. As per the petitioner he had to spend money on traveling. Lastly, the petitioner sought compensation of rupees ten lacs.

6. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle) filed separate replies to the claim petition, wherein they raised preliminary objections, viz., maintainability of the petition, the petitioners have suppressed the material facts, they have no locus-standi and cause of action to file the claim petition. They denied that the petitioner was a Supervisor in House Keeping Agency in Ultimate Utility, Phase-VI, Industrial Area, Mohali. The replying respondents also denied the income of the petitioner to be Rs.6,500/- per month. They admitted the occurrence of the accident, but av