Judgment

Mr. Gurbir Singh, J.:- This appeal has been filed by claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation granted vide Award dated 31.07.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in case No. 33 of 1990.

2. The claimant filed petition for grant of compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident caused by respondent Nos.1 and 2 while driving the car and scooter respectively in a rash and negligent manner.

3. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence led on the file, has held that it was a case of head-on collision between Car No.DL-2CA-9216 which was being driven by respondent No.1 and Scooter No.PB-48-8373 which was being driven by respondent No.2. The claimant was pillion rider of scooter and he suffered injuries in the said accident. The accident had taken place due to contributory negligence of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and both of them were equally liable for causing the accident. The appellant remained under treatment for 41 days and he lost vision of his left eye permanently. The appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. The appellant was a member of Self Finance Group Insurance Scheme of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Insurance Scheme’), in which he was serving and premium of the insurance was deducted from the salary of the employees including the appellant. A sum of Rs. 66,000/- had been given to the appellant by the said Insurance Scheme on account of the expenses of treatment. So, no amount of compensation, on account of expenses of the treatment, was granted to the appellant. He was granted compensation along with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realisation of the awarded amount as under:-

It has been further held that respondent No. 2 shall pay 50% of the awarded amount whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 3 shall pay the remaining 50% of the awarded amount jointly and severally.

4. Counsel for the appellant-claimant has argued that deduction to the extent of Rs. 66,000 of the amount which was paid by the Insurance Scheme of the bank in which the appellant was serving, is wholly illegal as appellant became member of the said group and was paying the premium from his own pocket. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his arguments, relies upon a judgement passed in the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav versus Azad and others , 2015 (3) PLR 211 (P&H) and a judgement of this Court passed in the case of Dr. Kamlesh Bhalla versus G.T. Roadways and others in FAO No. 402 of 2014 (O&M) decided on 18.01.2019. It is further submitted that no amount was granted under the head ‘transportation charges and special diet’. A meagre amount has been granted on account of permanent disability whereas vision of the left eye of the appellant is permanently lost and he has not been able to enjoy basic amenities of life. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that respondent No. 1-driver of the car and respondent No. 2-driver of the scooter have been rightly held to be negligent in causing the accident. Although, the Tribunal has held that accident was the result of contributory negligence but as far as appellant is concerned,