Judgment

Mrs. Archana Puri, J.

The present appeal has been filed by appellant-claimant Ashok, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, so awarded by learned Tribunal vide Award dated 08.02.2012, on account of the injuries sustained by him, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 13.01.2010.

2. On appraisal of the evidence adduced, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.6,44,964/- to the appellant-claimant.

3. So far as, the fact of accident and manner of its taking place is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the respondents, who have been held to pay the compensation jointly and severally, have not challenged the liability, so fastened upon them.

4. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the appellant was working as Lecturer-cum-Warden in Swami Nityanand Senior Secondary School, Rohtak and was taking classes for distance education. Ample of evidence has been led to so substantiate this avocation, so followed by the appellant, but however, it has been wrongly discarded by learned Tribunal. Furthermore, also it is submitted that appellant had suffered 71% permanent disability and became unable to follow his avocation and perform his day-to-day activities. He has been forced to live confined life after the accident. Keeping in view the same, it is submitted that instead of working upon the functional disability of the appellant, learned Tribunal had mechanically worked upon the compensation to be granted, solely on account of disability, on the percentage basis, while taking the same to be Rs.2000/- per percentage. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the impact of permanent disability, not only relating to his income generating capacity, but also about non-quantifiable implications, on the life of the appellant-claimant.

5. Further, it is submitted that loss of earning capacity, on account of injury sustained, as such, has not been worked upon in the proper perspective. Besides the same, learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the compensation, so awarded, on various other counts, is also on lower side. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant has made a prayer for extensive enhancement of the compensation, so awarded by learned Tribunal, while taking into consideration, avocation so followed by the appellant.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has refuted the claim the appellant-claimant, while asserting that no satisfactory evidence has been led to seek compensation, as now impressed upon. In view of the cross-examination of PW-9 Ajit Malik, so examined by the appellant, learned Tribunal has rightly discarded the plea of avocation, so followed by the appellant. Thus, he submits that the appeal sans merit and deserves to be dismissed.

7. While considering the cases of injury suffered in a motor vehicular accident and if the victim suffers permanent disability, then effort should always be made to award adequate compensation, not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.

8. In Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that the just compensation is adequate compensation and