JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. 

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 12.10.2000 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.41/1997 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide which a sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No. PJK-1557, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and respondents were held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant jointly and severally.

2. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session.

3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed and relevant issues are as under:-

“1. Whether the accident dated 16.02.1997 resulting into the injuries to the claimants Jagdish Singh, Jagir Singh and Kaptan Singh took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.PJK-1557? OPP.

4. Whether claimant Kaptan Singh is entitled to receive any amount of compensation and if so, from whom?OPP

5. Whether the offending truck was being driven by a person without holding a valid driving license? OPR-3

6. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable? OPR-3.

7. Relief. ”

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

5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

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

7. 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, driver of offending truck No.PJK-1557, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and all of them 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.

8. As per version of claimant/Kaptan Singh, he was a minor and had suffered injuries in the accident. In support of his case, his father has stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and deposed that his minor son had suffered injuries in the accident in his left leg. His left foot was amputated and he could not attend school for a year and lost one academic year. He is facing difficulty in walking.

9. PW1-Dr. Hari Om Aggarwal, Orthopaedic Surgeon, was also examined, who deposed that the patient had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% and he tendered in evidence the disability certificate Ex.P1.

10. PW3-Dr. K.D. Sharma, Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed that he had operated upon the patient and has tendered the OPD treatment card. He further stated that patient remained admitted in his hospital for 32 days and he had charged with Rs.13,250/- for the treatment.

11. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of expenses incurred on the treatment on the basis of evidence led on file, which, in my opinion, has correctly been assessed and no interference in the same is thus called for.

12. However, it is established that claimant had suffered fractures and he was operated upon but no compensation has been awarded on account of pain and sufferings by the Tribunal and the compensation thus has not been assessed as pe