Compensation in personal injury cases should fully restore claimants to their pre-accident position, factoring in medical costs, loss of earnings, and future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 20.12.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs. 3,01, Oil/- on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant-Shagan Lal in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 17.01.2002.

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 is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends that the appellant was working as photographer and was running a studio and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Further, the appellant/claimant was 40 years of age at the time of the accident. He further contends:-

ii) That the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60%, which is placed on record as Ex.P-257.

iii) That the amount granted for special diet, pain and suffering is on lower side and no amount was granted for attendant charges and transportation charges. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently argue on the lines of the award and contend that the amount of compensation as assessed by the Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the present 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/claimant was 40 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as Photographer earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. His income certificate was proved by the Income Tax Department as Mark 'B'.

ii) That the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% due to mal-united fracture of R-humorous with restricted movements of shoulder, mal-united fracture are ulna with restricted elbow movements, which is proved on record through disability certificate exhibited as Ex.P-257.

iii) That the medical bills Ex. P-6 to P-255 are proved on record to the tune of Rs. 2,01,011/-.

iv) That the amount granted for special diet, pain and suffering is on lower side and no amount was granted for attendant charges and transportation charges. 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 reference to the nature of disability an