JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant, thereby, questioning the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of injuries sustained by him, in a motor vehicular accident.

2. The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-

3. That, on 10.06.2011, the appellant-claimant had proceeded from Police Station Sector-36, Chandigarh, for his home in Baltana, on his Activa bearing registration No.CH-04L-6648. When he reached near village Mauli Jagran, in the meantime, respondent No.1-Deepak alias Depinder Singh, while driving car bearing registration No.HP-34C-3839, came at a high speed, in rash and negligent manner and struck the car from behind, as a result whereof, the appellant-claimant sustained multiple injuries on vital organs, including head injury.

4. Also, it was asserted that appellant-claimant was working as Home Guard volunteer in the Department of Home Guards, U.T. Chandigarh and drawing salary of Rs.9300/- per month.

5. So far as, the factum and manner of taking place of the accident as well as the liability fastened upon the respondents is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that none of the respondents, who have been saddled with the liability, have filed any appeal. Be it noted that it is only the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant for seeking enhancement of the compensation. Thus, there is no necessity to further dwell on the aforesaid aspects.

6. So far as, the vocation of appellant-claimant is concerned, the same stands amply established from the testimony of PW-2 Manraj Singh, Head Constable, who deposed that appellant was working as Home Guard volunteer and he remained on leave from 11.06.2011 to 28.02.2012. He also deposed that he was drawing salary for 31 days as Rs.9380/- per month. Considering the same, for the loss of income, during the period of leave from 11.06.2011 to 28.02.2012 i.e. 263 days, learned Tribunal worked upon the loss of income as 263x300=Rs.78,900/-.

7. Besides the aforesaid amount, on account of medical expenditure, considering the bills Ex.P11 to P55, an amount of Rs.79,396/- was granted. Also, it is pertinent to mention that appellant-claimant had also examined PW-3 Dr.Rajesh Chhabra, Assistant Professor, Department of Neuro Surgery, PGIMER, Chandigarh, who had proved the disability certificate, which is Ex.P56 and he has categorically deposed that claimant suffered disability of mild-left hemiparesis, reduced vision left eye and left third nerve paresis and the total disability was assessed as 56%, in relation to the whole body, which is permanent in nature and not likely to improve. He also deposed that it is going to affect his day-to-day activity and he may not be able to do his field duty actively.

8. In view of the observations aforesaid, the disability so spelt out, learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the testimony of PW-2 Manraj Singh, who stated that the claimant was doing duties and was given light nature of work. On this account, it was also held by learned Tribunal that there cannot be any loss of future income.

9. Learned Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.60,000/-, towards loss of future amenities. Besides the same, on account of 'pain and suffering' a sum of Rs.20,000/- was granted. Rs.3000/- was granted for 'transportation and another amount of Rs.6000/- was granted on the count of 'special diet'. For the attendant charges, an amount of Rs.4000/- was granted. Considering the aforesaid, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal, in tabular form, is herein given:-

10. Being aggrieved by the extent of compensation awarded, the appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal.

11. Definitely, the 'work on' of the compensation aforesaid, do