JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 04.01.2003 passed by MACT, Amritsar (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.71 of 1999 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,17,153/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.PB-02-J-9815 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the ld. MACT:-

“1. Whether the claimant received injuries on 25.2.99 due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.PB-02-J-9815 by respondent No.1? OPA

2. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving licence? OPR-3

3. To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom? OPA

4. Relief.”

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,17,153/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle and respondents No.1 to 3 were held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered 40% permanent disability and he has been awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,17,153/-. Learned counsel further argued that no compensation has been awarded under the head of ‘pain and sufferings, ‘loss of income during the period of treatment’, ‘transportation charges’, ‘special diet’ and ‘attendant charges’, whereas on account of permanent disability suffered by him, the claimant will suffer ‘loss of income’ in future as well and adequate compensation has not been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. Learned counsel prayed that impugned award is thus liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another and 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

9. Coming to issue No.3, case of claimant is that he had suffered multiple grievous injuries due to which he has suffered permanent disability and spent huge amount on his treatment and he is thus entitled to compensation.

10. To prove the na