The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definitions of vehicles and equipment under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the entitlement of claimants to compensation for pain and suffering.

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by Insurance Company to challenge the impugned award dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby the claimant (respondent No.1) has been awarded compensation of Rs. 7,43,400/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization, on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 13.11.2009.

2. As per case of the claimant filed before the Tribunal on 13.11.2009, he was coming back home by driving his motor-cycle No. HR99EH-5928 from Kulhariwala, District Solan to Himshikha Colony, Pinjore. When he reached near village Dhamala at about 7.30 p.m., a tractor trolley, make Holland, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, while going ahead of motor cycle of claimant, took a turn towards village Dhamala without giving any indication. Consequent whereupon, the claimant was hit by tractor trolley and fell down on the road. He suffered multiple and grievous injuries and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Chandimandir wherein he remained admitted for one month. The left leg of the claimant was amputated below knee cap and an iron rod was inserted in the left arm after operation.

3. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company by way of filing written statement on the ground that the driver of tractor trolley was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and also that no accident took place with the tractor trolley.

4. The claim petition of the claimant was allowed vide award dated 24.1.2013 and claimant was held entitled to Rs. 6,48,000/- on account of loss of income and by considering his disability to the extent of 60%, he was also held entitled to 60% of the assessed income i.e. Rs. 3,88,000/- towards future loss of income, Rs. 3,24,600/- for affixation of artificial limb and Rs. 30,000/- for transportation charges, attendant expenses and special diet. Considering all heads and applying multiplier of 9, he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,43,400/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing petition till actual realization.

5. Aggrieved by said award, the appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court by way of filing the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation is on the higher side as no documentary evidence was produced regarding employment of the insured but still, income was assessed as Rs. 6,000/- per month and multiplier was applied on income of Rs. 6000/-. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,88,800/- i.e. 60% of the assessed income towards future loss of income on account of 60% disability suffered by him which is also on the higher side. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending tractor was not having a valid and effective licence as it was issued only to drive scooter/motorcycle/car/jeep/tractor whereas he was driving the tractor trolley at the time of accident. There was violation of terms and conditions of the policy and insurance company should have been granted recovery rights. Learned counsel further submits that the claimant has died during the pendency of the appeal and he cannot be held entitled for amount towards pain and suffering. At the end, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly relied upon judgment rendered in case Nagashetty v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 4 RCR (Civil) 597 (Supreme Court) whereas this judgment is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in M/s Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka &