JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

1. The case is listed before this Court for referral to the 'Special Mediation Drive-Mediation 'For the Nation' List'.

2. Learned counsels for the parties contend that the matter cannot be referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

FAO-2423-2009

3. The present appeal has been preferred against the award award dated 05.12.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind ('the Tribunal'), in a petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimant/appellant to the tune of Rs.19,85,493/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on account of injuries suffered by her in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 17.07.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends that the amount awarded under the heads of medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges, and special diet is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced, as per settled law. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical expenses, despite the fact that the husband of the claimant, Randhir Singh (PW-19), failed to properly substantiate the said amount. He further argues that the amount awarded for pain and suffering, attendant charges, transportation charges etc. is also on higher side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

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:-

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 :

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It