JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J. 

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 18.12.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs. 11,700/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 22.05.2005.

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 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends:-

i) That the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.

ii) That the learned Tribunal ought to have granted compensation under separate heads for hospitalization, attendant charges, transportation, pain and suffering and future medicine etc. as the consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- is very less. Therefore, the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant should be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance Companies, however, vehemently argue that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the appeal.

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

6. A perusal of the award further shows that the appellant/claimant was 35 years of age and her MLR Ex. P-2 depicted seven injuries on her person and she remained admitted in the hospital for almost seven days. The medical bills are proved on record to the extent of Rs. 1,675/- which was rounded to a sum of Rs. 1,700/-. Further this Court deems it appropriate to grant compensation under the separate heads for pain and suffering, special diet, transportation charges, attendant charges, loss of amenities of life and medical expenses. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

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