JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J. (Oral)

CM-21716-CII-2024

1. This is an application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the main case which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 05.11.2024.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated 05.11.2024 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today.

FAO-2969-2006

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 13.04.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.80,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant-Kuldeep Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 18.12.2002.

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 reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends:-

i) That Ld. Tribunal has not applied multiplier system while calculating the compensation.

ii) That the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 6%, which is depicted from Ex.PC.

iii) That the amount granted for pain and suffering and attendant charges are on lower side and no amount was granted for special diet and transportation charges. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by the Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present 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, 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 no