***

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 30.04.2016 passed in the claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimant/appellant to the tune of Rs.11,26,380/- @ 7.5% per annum, who is the mother of the deceased-Navneet Kaur.

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 required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that

(i) The compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserved to be enhanced.

(ii) That the deceased Navneet Kaur got severally injured in accident in question and she remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh for around 25 days. After her discharge from PGI, Chandigarh, she remained bed ridden in a vegetative state and ultimately, expired after 33 months due to injuries suffered by her in the above accident.

(iii) That despite overwhelming medical evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting even a single penny under the head of loss of pain and suffering caused to injured (since deceased).

(iv) That a meager amount has been awarded for medical expenses and no amount for future medical treatment was awarded.

(v) That the amount awarded under the head of attendant charges, special diet is also on the lower side.

(vi) That he relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Ashish Ravinder Kulkarni and others, 2023 ACJ 1997 to contend that since the deceased was a regular employee, 50% addition should be made towards future prospects. He, thus prays that the present appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Co., however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount under the head of pain and suffering, as the same was experienced was personal to her and cannot be considered as to loss of estate of deceased. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

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

6. A bare perusal of the impugned award would reveal that the injured–Navneet Kaur (since deceased) was a young girl of merely 21 years of age at the time of the unfortunate accident. She was employed as a Customer Support Associate with Tech Mahindra and stood at the threshold of a promising career and a fulfilling life. The records portray not merely the loss of income of a young earning member, but the destruction of the aspirations, dignity and future of a girl who had only just begun to shape her life.

7. However, fate dealt a cruel blow. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the deceased was reduced to a state of complete helplessness and prolonged unconsciousness. The evidence on record demonstrates that what should have been the most vibrant years of her life were instead spent in hospitals, on life support measures and in a vegetative condition, entirely dependent upon others even for her basic existence. The accident did not merely impair her physical faculties; it effectively robbed her of the ability to live a life of dignity, awareness and human interaction.

8. The material available on record further shows that from the date of the accident till her eventual demise, she remained confined to bed, deprived of every ordinary enjoyment and amenity of life. Thus, the case at hand is not merely one of bodily injury resulting in death, but one involving prolong