The main legal point established in the judgment is the justification for deviation from the fixed compensation amounts provided in the Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, highlighting the need for just and fair compensation based on changes in medical expenses and cost of living.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident against the award passed by the Tribunal in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant-claimant namely Vijay Pal was a pillion rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-36L- 6236 driven by respondent No.1-Ved Parkash on the ill-fated day of 10.02.2011 and when they were 1KM short from their village, a stray dog dashed into their motor cycle on account of which they fell down and received multiple injuries. The claimant, who received grievous head injuries, was moved to Shri Krishna Hospital, Garhi Bolni Road, Rewari where he was advised for CT Scan and after examining the CT Scan, doctor advised him to be admitted in Paras Hospital, Gurgaon with promptitude. He remained admitted in Paras Hospital from 10.02.2011 to 14.02.2011 and spent Rs.1,79,477/- on his treatment as hospitalization charges and medicines.

2. The Tribunal while passing the award dated 17.01.2014 assessed a compensation of Rs.70,000/- under the following heads:-

(i) Compensation on account of expenses for getting medical treatment which includes hospitalization charges, expenses in purchasing medicines etc. (as per provision provided under Section 163-A M.V.Act) - Rs.15,000/-

(ii) Compensation on account of pain and suffering - Rs.5000/-

(iii) Compensation on account of disability to the to the extent of 25%- Rs.50,000/-

Total - Rs.70,000/-

3. Mr. Ajay Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Tribunal while awarding a compensation of Rs.70,000/- has provided a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of medical expenses. He vehemently argued that once the appellant has proved on record that he spent a sum of Rs.1,79,477/- on his medical treatment, awarding a meager sum of Rs.15,000/- just because the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A is gross miscarriage of justice. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in FAO No.951 of 2009 on 30.08.2012 titled as “Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gurdev Singh and others” wherein this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company against the award of Rs.4,63,400/- under Section 163-A on the same ground. He also relied on a judgment of Gauhati High Court passed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lalawmpunia and others 2012 ACJ 271 wherein it did not deem appropriate to interfere with an amount of Rs.1,20,843/- provided by the Tribunal towards medical expenses under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. He further argued that the amounts provided for pain and suffering and permanent disability is also on lower side, thus, urges this Court for enhancement of compensation.

5. Per contra, Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company submitted that the amount of Rs.15,000/- provided for medical expenses is perfectly legal, justified and as per scope and mandate of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of this Court passed in Gulab Singh VS. Mr. Shubeg Singh and another Vol. CLXXIII (2014-1) PLR 650 and Mohit Garg and another Vs. Afrojan and others Vol. CLXXVI (2014-4) PLR 160 wherein this Court held that breach of Schedule II Formula is impermissible and the limit fixed for medical expenses cannot be bypassed in any manner, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal on account of amount provided towards pain and suffering and permanent disability is fair and just. Now the only question posed before this Court is whether the Courts should see the head of medical expenses through the prizm of Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act or any deviation from the same to do the Scales