JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- claimant against the Award dated 23.12.2024 passed in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the respondent No.2-Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs.10,85,760/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.

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 required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant contends that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He further contends that the amount awarded towards loss of future income, transportation charges, special diet, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and attendant charges is on lower side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant should be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance company however, vehemently argues that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is on higher side and respondent has preferred FAO-1521-2025, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Afzal and another, challenging the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal, 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 with their able assistance.

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, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).

6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The p