JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

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

2. Suffice to consider that the accident had taken place on 11.06.2022. The appellant-claimant Abdul Qayum along with other persons, being fruit vendors, had loaded their litchi fruit in TATA 709 bearing registration No.UP-07G-5609 and were coming from Dehradun to Chandigarh, being driven by respondent No.1-Ashik Ali @ Guddu. The appellant as well as other occupants of the truck, on account of the accident question, which was held to have been taken place on account of rash and negligence, on the part of the respondent No.1, had sustained extensive injuries and claim petitions were filed by various occupants of the truck in question. Appellant-Abdul Qayum had also sustained injuries and he had also filed separate claim petition.

3. Considering the evidence, brought on record, it was held by learned Tribunal that Abdul Qayum had suffered grievous injuries and he remained hospitalized at first instance, from 11.06.2002 to 16.06.2002 and second time from 22.06.2004 to 06.07.2004. The discharge card is Ex.P22, wherein, it was observed that he had suffered fracture left femur, for which, he was operated upon. Considering the same and also taking into consideration the fact of the second admission, being on account of fall three months back, i.e. somewhere in March 2004, for the purposes of assessment of the compensation, the first admission was taken into consideration, but however, no amount on the count of 'medical bills' has been awarded.

4. However, on the count of 'pain and suffering' Rs.25,000/- was awarded and on the counts of 'good diet, transportation etc.', another amount of Rs.40,000/- was awarded. While assessing the income of the appellant as Rs.2500/- per month, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded, for his inability to attend to his work at least for 4-5 months. Considering the disability certificate Ex.P24, wherein, the disability was mentioned as Fifty Five percent in words and in figures, was mentioned as 50%, another amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded under this head. Thus, in total, the compensation awarded was Rs.1,25,000/- and the liability of the respondents was held to be joint and several.

5. Being aggrieved, only the appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal for seeking enhancement.

6. At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that various counts, which ought to be taken into consideration, while making assessment of extent of compensation, have been given amiss by learned Tribunal. In fact, the extent of disability has not been properly appraised and the Tribunal did not consider the aspect of functional disability, not only to the income generating capacity of the appellant, who was a fruit vendor but also about non-quantifiable implications, on the life of the appellant-claimant. Also, it is submitted that the seat of injury was such, which made the appellant immobile for a long duration of time and this fact, as such, has not been considered by learned Tribunal. Even though, the earnings were asserted to be Rs.5000/- per month, but it has been erroneously considered on lesser side as Rs.2500/- per month. Thus, it is submitted that the consequential 'work on' of the compensation is on lesser side.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have refuted the claim of the appellant-claimant, while asserting that no satisfactory evidence has been led to seek compensation, as now impressed upon. In fact, it is submitted that apart from the appellant-claimant himself stepping into witness box as PW-1, no other witness has been examined. The treating doctor has also not been examined. Even, qua the disability certificate, no member of the board, as such has been examined. Such being the factual