The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to enhanced compensation for permanent disabilities, loss of earnings, and expenses incurred during treatment in motor vehicle accident cases.

R.S.Madan, J.

1. This order of mine shall dispose of all the four F.A.Os bearing Nos. 772, 773, 774 and 775 of 1990, which have arisen out of the common judgment dated 9.05.1990 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). By filing the present F.A.Os the appellants have prayed for the enhancement of compensation, for the injuries received by them in the same accident. The Tribunal after considering the evidence brought on the record, awarded the compensation to the claimants, as under:

1. Vaibhav Nijhawan Rs. 81,600/- with costs of the petition and Rs. 500/- as counsel fee and interest @ 12% PA.

2. Vivek Anand Nijhawan Rs. 1,57,950/- with costs of the petition, counsel fee and interest @ 12 % P.A.

3. Mahima Rs. 1,32,000/- with costs of the petition counsel fee and interest @ 12 % P.A.

4. Mrs. Kandla Nijhawan Rs. 1,73,500/- with costs of the petition, counsel fee and interest @ 12% P.A.

2. Since, all the family members received serious injuries in the same accident, the facts are taken from F.A.O. No. 772 of 1990.

3. In brief the facts of the case are that on 4.8.1986 at about 9.15 P.M. Vivek Anand Nijhawan along with his wife and children was going to his house in Sector 36 on motor cycle bearing No. CHO-7523 after closing his factory situated in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh. When he reached near the Tribune Chowk, the left hand side of the rod was closed to traffic for security reasons and he drove the motor cycle on the right hand lane from where the traffic was diverted. When he reached near Tribune Chowk, Car bearing No. PJV-6383 being driven by respondent Muni Lal came from the opposite side at a high speed without its head lights on. All of a sudden the said car swerved to the right side without any reason and hit the motor cycle from the front side, as a result of which all the persons sitting on the motor cycle including the claimant suffered severe injuries. They were shifted to PGI where they remained under treatment. According to the claimants, the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of Car being driven by V.K. Sood. The claimant Vivek Anand claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-; Vaibhav Anand claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Mrs. Kandla claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-, Mahima (minor) claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, under various heads i.e. for pain and suffering, mental torture, medical treatment, hospitalization, whole time attendant, loss of business, enjoyment of life, permanent disability and special diet.

4. The claim petitions were resisted by respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Company, alleging that the claim petitions were vague and did not disclose any cause of action. It was further alleged that the driver of the Car was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the claimant. Further it is alleged that the claim petitions were time barred and that the claimant was carrying four passengers including two minors which was against the sitting capacity of two persons only.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following common issues were framed by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the claimant was injured as a result of rash and negligent driving of Car No. PJV-6383 driven by respondent No. 1? OPP.

2) Whether the claimant in MACT Case No. 68 of 1986 is entitled to any compensation?

3) Whether the claimant in MACT Case No. 67 is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

4) Whether the claimant in MACT Case No. 66 is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

5) Whether the claimant in MACT Case No. 64 is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

6) Whether the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR.

7) Relief.

6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidenc