JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. Vide this common judgment, the above noted two appeals, bearing FAO No. 2180 of 2019 and FAO No. 3526 of 2019 impugning the award dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.A.S. Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), shall be disposed of. For convenience, facts are being taken from FAO No. 2180 of 2019.

FACTS

2. The appellant, being injured filed a 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 07.02.2018 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver.

3. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal vide award dated 05.12.2018, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and awarded compensation in the following manner:-

4. It is the said award dated 05.12.2018 which has been challenged by way of present two appeals.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant assailed the award while submitting that in the given facts, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was on the lower side. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the monthly income of the appellant @ Rs. 8,000/-, despite unrebutted evidence establishing that the appellant was earning about Rs. 15,000/- per month by playing Punjabi Dhol at functions and working as labourer. He further submitted that the application of multiplier of 13 was erroneous, as the appellant was 45 years of age at the time of accident and the appropriate multiplier of 14 ought to have been applied. Furthermore, it was submitted that the compensation awarded under various heads such as permanent disability, medical expenses (past and future), pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life was grossly inadequate, considering the prolonged hospitalization, multiple surgeries, continued treatment and the lifelong hardship suffered by the appellant. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest decisions on the subject.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company, vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal erred in treating 80% permanent disability of the left limb as 100% functional disability of the whole body, resulting in unjustified and excessive award towards loss of future earnings, contrary to the settled law. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal fell into grave error in awarding Rs. 4,00,000/- towards artificial limb and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses on mere presumption, despite there being no proof of actual expenditure and clear evidence on record indicating a much lower assessed cost. The learned counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that the impugned award was highly excessive and contended that the learned Tribunal fell into error while awarding a whopping sum of Rs. 23,11,877/- as compensation and as such the same was liable to be set aside.

DISCUSSION

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-books of the appeals as well. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant.

8. Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in similar cases. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 343 the Hon’ble Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. Relevant paragraph No. 6 therefore being relevant is extracted hereunder:-

“6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:

Pec