JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 29.08.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166/170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 22.02.1994.

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 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends:-

(i) That the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.

(ii) That the appellant/claimant was 30 years old, at the time of accident; was working as a Compositor at Swami Printing Press, Baghapurana, owned by one Gian Mittal and was getting a salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month.

(iii) That the appellant/claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 27%, as per disability certificate placed on record as Mark 'B'.

(iv) That the amount awarded towards pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, loss of amenities and medical treatment is also on lower side. Further contends that no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of future prospects, loss of income, transportation, medical expenses for future treatment and loss of amenities.

Therefore, the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant 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. Therefore, 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/claimant was stated to be earning Rs. 2,500/- per month and in support of this contention, appellant/claimant examined PW-4, Gian Mittal (owner of printing press), who has tendered his affidavit (Ex.PW4/A) in evidence on record averring that appellant/claimant was working as a Composer in his printing press and was getting a salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. Therefore, under the prevailing facts and circumstances of the present case and affidavit (Ex.P-32) of Gian Mittal, owner of the printing press, the income of the appellant/claimant is assessed as Rs. 2,500/- per month. A perusal of the award further shows that as per disability certificate (Mark 'X'), the appellant/claimant has suffered 27% permanent disability. A perusal of the award further shows that a meager amount of compensation has been granted by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering and special diet. Moreover, no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of future prospects, loss of amenities, transportation and attendant 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:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

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, i