JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

The present appeal lays challenge to an award dated 16.04.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'learned Tribunal'), whereby an amount of Rs. 8,47,024/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident.

Brief Facts

2. The appellant/claimant being injured, filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 26.01.2006, while alleging rash and negligent driving of one Mr. Manoj Seth/driver who succumbed to his injuries on the spot.

3. After going through the pleadings and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Mr. Manoj Seth/driver; holding respondent Nos.l and 2 jointly and severally liable; awarded compensation in the following manner: -

4. Being aggrieved against the award dated 16.04.2009, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver as held by the Tribunal being in favour of appellant, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated here.

Arguments

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant assailed the award by submitting that the appellant was a student of 18 years of age at the time of motor vehicular accident, who suffered 80% permanent disability, and learned Tribunal erred while not granting any compensation on account of loss of income during hospitalization as well as for future loss of income. He also argued that the learned Tribunal erred while holding that the medical bills pertaining to the physiotherapy treatment taken by the appellant in Canada were not proved and thus, wrongly denied. He further argued that the compensation under conventional heads was also on the lower side and thus, liable to be enhanced.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.2/Insurance Company submitted that appellant had been adequately compensated and thus, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused paper-book and record of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.

Discussion

On the aspect of enhancement of compensation

Assessment under 'loss of income and future loss of Income'

8. In the present case, at the time of motor vehicular accident, appellant happened to be a student of 18 years of age, who suffered 80% permanent disability (Ex.P-4A) due to injuries received by him on the fateful day. Even though neither any income proof of the appellant was produced with the claim petition, nor the same was ever proved during the proceedings in the Tribunal or even before this Court, however, relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another'-reported as (2014) 11 SCC 178. whereby the income of a student of class 11th, injured in a road accident which took place in the year 2005, was taken as Rs. 10,000/- per month. Relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereunder:-

'17. The fact that the appellant was a brilliant student at the time of the accident should also be taken into consideration while awarding compensation to her. Therefore, taking Rs 6,000 - as monthly notional income by the Tribunal for the purpose of awarding compensation under this head is too meager an amount. The learned cou