BALVINDER @ VIRENDER Vs. BALRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The injured has approached this Court for modification of the award dated 18.7.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, 'the Tribunal').

(2.) Briefly stated the facts as follows:

(3.) The first limb of Shri Kotla's argument is that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- per month, though he had led evidence showing his monthly income at Rs. 15,000/- per month from his agriculture pursuits. Although the claimant has suffered disability of 72% which even the Tribunal has also taken into consideration while assessing the compensation amount, however, proportionate amount qua disability of 72% was awarded, which should have been 100%, inasmuch as, the claimant is not in a position to cope up with the agriculture work for his whole of life. The second limb of argument of learned counsel is that the Tribunal did not grant any compensation for loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, frustration, pain and suffering, damages, physical, mental shock, earning and future medication. To strengthen his arguments, reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered in G.Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary v. E. Srinivas and another, 2013 3 RCR(Civ) 934, Neerupam Mohan Mathur v. New India Assurance Co, 2013 4 RCR(Civ) 268 and R.Venkata Ramana and another v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2013 4 RCR(Civ) 426.