JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1.These are two rival appeals filed, thereby, questioning the adequacy of the compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of injuries sustained by Om Parkash, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 28.12.2008.

2. FAO-4695-2018 has been filed by appellant-Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, thereby, seeking reduction of the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal, whereas, FAO-5221-2018 has been filed by the appellant-claimant Om Parkash, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. For the convenience of discussion, the parties are referred to as making appearance before learned Tribunal.

4. Suffice to consider that the accident had taken place on 28.12.2008. 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 truck bearing registration No.KA-01B-9728, driven by respondent No.1-Madhu R. and the same resulted into injuries on the person of Om Parkash, as well as his companions, namely, Rakesh Bagga and Subhash. The injuries proved fatal for Rakesh Bagga.

5. Further, learned Tribunal also observed that Om Parkash had sustained multiple injuries on his person. He remained admitted in Raman Munjal Hospital and PGIMS, Rohtak and the period of his hospitalizaion was proved by PW-2 Raje Ram, who deposed that the patient remained admitted in the hospital from 28.12.2008 to 10.01.2009, 12.01.2009 to 13.03.2009 and from 24.07.2009 to 10.08.2009. Also, it was observed that the treatment is still going on and he has not been cured so far. PW-5 Dr.Manish Sheoran, proved the disability certificate Ex.PW5/A and deposed that Om Parkash had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 100%, on account of united fracture of sacrum with pubicrami with pubic diathesis with malunited fracture for right tibea with stiffness of right knee joint. On the basis of the medical bills Mark A1 to Mark A157, to the extent of Rs.1,12,248/-, learned Tribunal had awarded lumpsum amount of Rs.1,15,000/-. Further, taking into the consideration the claimant to be working as driver, on the basis of the driving licence, coming on record and his age to be 42 years, learned Tribunal, had worked upon the compensation, in tabular form in paragraph No.26 of the Award, which is reproduced, as herein given:-

6. The liability fastened upon the respondent was, joint and several.

7. The extent of compensation is now under challenge in both the appeals.

8. The ‘work on’ of the compensation aforesaid, definitely calls for re-computation.

9. It is pertinent to mention that though there is no rule of absolute certainty to make assessment of the impact of injuries, but however, the metric for consideration is just and fair compensation. In this regard, beneficial reference is made to Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the 'just' compensation is adequate compensation and the Award must be just that-'no less and no more'. Time and again, it has been held by the Courts that the money awarded, can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim (who is deprived of the normal amenities of life and suffers unease of being a burden on others). However, the Courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding ‘just compensation’.

10. Suffice to consider the aspect of functional disability to be taken in case of permanent disability, as elucidated in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 343, wherein, it was observed, as herein given:-

“13. We may now summaris