Compensation under motor accident claims must justly restore claimants considering all aspects of loss, including future earnings and non-pecuniary damages.

JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 23.09.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ludhiana (for short, 'the Tribunal'), for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimant to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, on account of injuries suffered by the appellant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 02.12.2001.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, as the appellant was 48 years of age at the time of accident. He received serious injuries on his body. His permanent disability was assessed to the extent of 60%, as per disability certificate Ex. PA. Further nothing has been awarded under the conventional heads i.e pain and sufferings, attendant charges etc. The appellant has been given only lumpsum compensation. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant was 48 years of age at the time of accident and was doing dairy farming. The claimant/appellant suffered 60% permanent disability, as per Disability Certificate (Ex PA). The appellant sustained multiple injuries. He remained admitted in hospital from 02.12.2001 to 31.12.2001. The learned Tribunal while granting the compensation has not taken into consideration the future of the appellant, consequent to the accident. The learned Tribunal failed to grant the compensation on account of mental loss to the appellant with respect to his work. The learned Tribunal has not assessed the monthly income of the appellant while awarding compensation. Therefore, under the prevailing facts and circumstances of the present case, the income of the appellant is assessed as Rs.2100/- per month in accordance with the minimum wages prescribed for skilled worker in the State of Punjab at the prevalent time. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has held as under:-

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with