JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

These are three appeals, filed by the appellants-claimants to question the adequacy of the compensation awarded to them by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of injuries sustained, in a motor vehicular accident.

2. The accident had taken place on 09.12.2014.

3. The appellants-claimants along with one Satish Kumar, were the occupants of car bearing registration No.HR-24S-3030 and the other vehicle involved in the accident was canter bearing registration No.HR-56E-0041, driven by respondent No.1-Amit.

4. On appraisal of the evidence brought on record, learned Tribunal had concluded about the accident to have taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the canter and consequently, all the appellants-claimants and other occupant Satish Kumar, had sustained injuries, in the accident in question.

5. Further, it is pertinent to mention that none of the respondents, upon whom, the liability was fastened to pay the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal, have assailed the findings. In the given circumstances, there is no necessity to further dwell upon these aspects. Be it noted that, it is only the appellants-claimants, who have sought enhancement of the compensation, in the appeals in question.

6. Learned counsel for the parties heard and also with their able assistance, gone through the evidence, brought on record as well as gone through the written synopsis furnished by learned counsel for the appellants.

7. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that learned Tribunal, while considering the testimonies of the appellants-claimants, namely Veena Rani @ Amita Rani, Sujata @ Nirmal and Jagan Nath as well as other occupant Satish Kumar and various other witnesses examined and on appraisal of the documentary evidence, brought on record, had granted compensation to the extent of Rs.1,18,217/- to claimant Veena Rani @ Amita Rani, Rs.4,26,509/- to claimant Jagan Nath and Rs.1,54,960/- to claimant Sujata @ Nirmal. The liability was held to be joint and several of the respondents i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

8. While making reference to the evidence, brought on record, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants underscores that learned Tribunal had not considered permanent disability suffered by each of the claimants and impact of the same, as they are unable to perform everyday activities and they require constant support, even, for the confined lives, they have been forced to live after the accident. It is also submitted that the appellants-claimants have become invalid and as such, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is miserably on lower side. Various important counts, have also been given amiss.

9. In fact, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, more particularly, the claim of claimant-Jagan Nath that the impact of permanent disability, has been considered in a mechanical manner. It had not taken into consideration, the impact of permanent disability, upon the lives of the appellants-claimants, not only relating to their income generating capacity, but also about non-quantifiable implications, on the lives of the appellants-claimants.

10. Besides the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants assiduously submits that looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the appellants, additional medical exigencies were necessitated and expenses were to be incurred for medical treatment also, in future, which fact has been overlooked by learned Tribunal. It is submitted that compensation awarded is not 'just compensation'. To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, has placed reliance upon S.Jagjit Singh vs. Haryana Roadways, 1993(3) RCR (C) 105, Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2010 (4) RCR (C) 917, Yadava Kumar vs. The Divisional Mgr. NIA Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2010 (4) RCR (C) 155, G.Dhanaskar vs. M.D. Metropolitan Transport Corp. Ltd., 2014(1) RCR (C) 993, Raj Kuma