JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

CM-1292-CII-2018

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 1109 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant acknowledges that there is a delay of 1109 days in filing the present appeal and submits that he would not press interest on the enhanced amount for the delayed period of 1109 days.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 1109 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

FAO-354-2018 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 08.08.2014 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the claimant/appellant to the tune of Rs.21,600/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 07.11.2011.

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 required to be reproduced for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. He submits that the appellant/claimant was a brilliant student and due to the accident, he suffered 10% temporary disability on account of fracture both bones right leg and 3, 4 & 5 metatarsal right foot with stiffness of ankle joint, which is evident from the disability certificate placed on record as Ex.P1. He further contends that the amount awarded towards pain and suffering, disability, medical expenses and transportation is on lower side. Moreover, no amount has been awarded under the heads of attendant charges, special diet and loss of amenities, which ought to have been considered by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays that 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 No.3-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.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. 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 and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376,