Judgment R.S.Madan, J. 1. This order of mine shall dispose of all the four F.A.Os bearing Nos. 772, 773, 774 and 775 of 1990, which have arisen out of the common judgment dated 9.05.1990 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). By filing the present F.A.Os the appellants have prayed for the enhancement of compensation, for the injuries received by them in the same accident. The Tribunal after considering the evidence brought on the record, awarded the compensation to the claimants, as under: 1. Vaibhav Nijhawan Rs. 81,600/- with costs of the petition and Rs. 500/- as counsel fee and interest @ 12% PA. 2. Vivek Anand Nijhawan Rs. 1,57,950/- with costs of the petition, counsel fee and interest @ 12 % P.A. 3. Mahima Rs. 1,32,000/- with costs of the petition counsel fee and interest @ 12 % P.A. 4. Mrs. Kandla Nijhawan Rs. 1,73,500/- with costs of the petition, counsel fee and interest @ 12% P.A. 2. Since, all the family members received serious injuries in the same accident, the facts are taken from F.A.O. No. 772 of 1990. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that on 4.8.1986 at about 9.15 P.M. Vivek Anand Nijhawan along with his wife and children was going to his house in Sector 36 on motor cycle bearing No. CHO-7523 after closing his factory situated in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh. When he reached near the Tribune Chowk, the left hand side of the rod was closed to traffic for security reasons and he drove the motor cycle on the right hand lane from where the traffic was diverted. When he reached near Tribune Chowk, Car bearing No. PJV-6383 being driven by respondent Muni Lal came from the opposite side at a high speed without its head lights on. All of a sudden the said car swerved to the right side without any reason and hit the motor cycle from the front side, as a result of which all the persons sitting on the motor cycle including the claimant suffered severe injuries. They were shifted to PGI where they remained under treatment. According to the claimants, the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of Car being driven by V.K. Sood. The claimant Vivek Anand claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-; Vaibhav Anand claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Mrs. They were shifted to PGI where they remained under treatment. According to the claimants, the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of Car being driven by V.K. Sood. The claimant Vivek Anand claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-; Vaibhav Anand claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Mrs. Kandla claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-, Mahima (minor) claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, under various heads i.e. for pain and suffering, mental torture, medical treatment, hospitalization, whole time attendant, loss of business, enjoyment of life, permanent disability and special diet. 4. The claim petitions were resisted by respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Company, alleging that the claim petitions were vague and did not disclose any cause of action. It was further alleged that the driver of the Car was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the claimant. Further it is alleged that the claim petitions were time barred and that the claimant was carrying four passengers including two minors which was against the sitting capacity of two persons only. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following common issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the claimant was injured as a result of rash and negligent driving of Car No. PJV-6383 driven by respondent No. 1? OPP. 2) Whether the claimant in MACT Case No. 68 of 1986 is entitled to any compensation? 3) Whether the claimant in MACT Case No. 67 is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4) Whether the claimant in MACT Case No. 66 is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 5) Whether the claimant in MACT Case No. 64 is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 6) Whether the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR. 7) Relief. 6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and material brought on the record and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, accepted the petitions and awarded compensation to the claimants, as indicated above. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. OPR. 7) Relief. 6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and material brought on the record and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, accepted the petitions and awarded compensation to the claimants, as indicated above. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. The learned Counsel for the claimants Smt. Alka Sarin contended that the claimant Vaibhav has suffered injuries in the accident about 20 years ago and at the relevant time the disability suffered by him could not be ascertained because of his young age, as has been opined by Dr. O.N. Negi, when he appeared in the witness box on 5.1.1996, testified about the injuries suffered by the claimant, which is reproduced as under: Fracture separation of lower femoral epiphysis right side. He further testified that the claimant was having soft tissue injuries on his face. On 5.8.1986 the claimant was operated and then again on 9.9.1986 for skin grafting. He remained admitted in the PGI from 5.8.1986 to 7.11.1986 i.e. for about three months. In the light of this observation made by Dr. O.N. Negi, Vaibhav has now grown up and has suffered permanent disability. He has also undergone a operation for which bill amounting to Rs. 52491/- have been placed on the record. The validity of the bill as well as the fact that Vaibhav has undergone operation during the period of pendency of the appeal before this Court, has not been disputed by the counsel for the Insurance Company. To evaluate the permanent disability suffered by Vaibhav, this Court was pleased to constitute a Special Medical Board of Civil Hospital Sector 16, Chandigarh. The said board was presided over by the Civil Surgeon besides two doctors of Orthopaedic stream. The medical board after examining Vaibhav found that he has suffered 40% disability on his body and shortening of the right lower limb by 3 inches. This would mean that the personality of Vaibhav for all times to come would be that of a handicapped person. Thus he would limp throughout his life. The learned Tribunal has not given any amount of compensation with respect to the permanent disability suffered by Vaibhav because of the young age of the claimant at the time of his examination by Dr. O.N. Negi. Thus he would limp throughout his life. The learned Tribunal has not given any amount of compensation with respect to the permanent disability suffered by Vaibhav because of the young age of the claimant at the time of his examination by Dr. O.N. Negi. Thus, according to the learned Counsel the appellant is now entitled to compensation with respect to the permanent disability suffered by him. 9. After going through the amount awarded by the Tribunal, I feel that he has been duly compensated so far as the medicines, pain and sufferings and special diets are concerned but at the same time this Court would not over look the fact that he had undergone an operation during the pendency of appeal and spent an amount of Rs. 52491-70 paise as is evident from the bills placed on the record. While taking into consideration the permanent disability suffered by Vaibhav who has now grown up as a young boy of 27 years, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if he is awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of permanent disability suffered by him. This amount will also include pain and sufferings which he has suffered with respect to the operation he has undergone during the pendency of this appeal. The claim of the appellant for further enhancement of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal is not made out except the amount of compensation which the appellant has spent on medicines, operation charges and permanent disability assessed by the Medical Board. Permanent Disability: Rs. 1,50,000/-. Amount spent on Rs. 52,491.70 operation and medicines. Total amount: Rs. 2,02,491.70 (to say Rs. 2,05,000). 10 This amount of Rs. 2,05,000/- is the additional amount which is being awarded to the appellant Vaibhav Nijhawan besides the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 11. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation to Vivek Nijhawan with respect to the loss of earnings during the period he remained admitted in the Hospital as well as for the maid servant he has employed to look after the entire family which was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh. 11. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation to Vivek Nijhawan with respect to the loss of earnings during the period he remained admitted in the Hospital as well as for the maid servant he has employed to look after the entire family which was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh. The learned Tribunal has ignored this fact by simply observing that the claimant was unable to prove the loss of his income as well as the amount spent by him in engaging maid attendant because in the PGI all the patients who are admitted are being looked after by the Medical Attendant (Staff Nurses) posted in the PGI, Chandigarh. The learned Counsel further stated that Dr. O.N. Negi has attended Vivek in the Emergency and noticed the following injuries: 1) Fracture Clearance right side (compound), 2) Fracture shaft femur right side; and 3) Fracture both bones leg right side (comminuted). Dr. O.N. Negi was also of the opinion that the patient had suffered 40% disability as regards the right lower limb. 12 After going through the evidence I find that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that the claimant has disclosed his income as Rs. 3000/- per month and the injured remained admitted in the Hospital for four months. Therefore, it was very easy for the Tribunal to have calculated the loss of earnings during the period the patient remained admitted in the PGI Chandigarh, which is now being assessed as Rs. 12,000/-, as the loss of income. Admittedly, the entire family of Vivek Nijhawan was admitted in the PGI and there was no one else to attend them while admitted in the PGI for such a long period. The claimant was thus bound to engage an attendant for the purpose of looking after the injured in the PGI, which must have cost him Rs. 1500 PM x 4 months i.e Rs. 6000/-. It has come in the statement of Dr. O.N. Negi that Vivek Nijhawan had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% but the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with respect to permanent disability. This amount appears to be inadequate and the same is now enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Thus, the injured appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on account of loss of income, Rs. 75,000/- with respect to permanent disability. This amount appears to be inadequate and the same is now enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Thus, the injured appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on account of loss of income, Rs. 6000/- as expenses of the maid servant engaged by the claimant and a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- which has been enhanced in this appeal. Thus the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 93,000/- besides the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. While disposing of issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal observed that Mahima Nijhawan was aged about 2 years at the time of accident. This accident take place 20 years ago. Admitted she has now grown up. At the time of admission of Mahima in the PGI, Chandigarh she had suffered injuries as well as developed permanent scars/marks on her left thigh. She remained admitted in the Hospital for more than 9 weeks. She was kept in a separate room in the PGI because of fear of virus. She was awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by the Tribunal on account of permanent disability with respect to permanent scars on her body. The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 7000/- for the purchase of medicines, and Rs. 50,000/- for pain and sufferings. Thus, in all she was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,32000/- by the Tribunal. 13. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mahima is now grown up girl of marriageable age and her parents are finding it difficult to merry her because of her scars on her left thigh. She had been treated by Dr. G.P. Sawhney of the plastic surgery department. She was admitted in the PGI on 8.8.1986 with 4% deep burns involving medical aspect of right and left thighs and right calf. Her deep burns were excised on 8.8.1986 and the raw area was covered with skin grafts taken from both the legs. She remained admitted in the PGI for a period of nine weeks and she had to be kept in a separate room because of fear of cross infection. According to the learned Counsel her feminine beauty has been reduced because of scar marks on her thigh, which are permanent in nature and are to remain throughout her life. She remained admitted in the PGI for a period of nine weeks and she had to be kept in a separate room because of fear of cross infection. According to the learned Counsel her feminine beauty has been reduced because of scar marks on her thigh, which are permanent in nature and are to remain throughout her life. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal with respect of the permanent scars/skin grafting required further enhancement of compensation. I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel and thus enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. This amount would be just and fair compensation which this Court is awarding to her keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus the claimant is entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 75,000/- besides the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal. 14. Now coming to the case of Smt. Kandla Nijhawan, the learned Counsel for the claimant contended that she suffered the following injuries in the accident. 1) Fracture neck of the femur right side. 2) Multiple comminuted fracture of lower 1/3rd of femur of right side. 15. According to Dr. O.N. Negi, she was given traction treatment and was operated upon for open reduction and internal fixation of femur right side with compression plating and grafting. The graft was taken from the pelvic bone and the surgery was done on 14.8.1986. She was further operated on 25.9.1986 for fracture neck of femur and surgery of ostosynthesis and fibula grafting. According to the doctor she remained immobilized for a period of six weeks and the plaster was removed after 12 weeks. She was lastly examined by Dr. O.N. Negi on 27.7.1988 when she was found having shortening of right leg by 1 cm. She was unable to sit in a squatting position. The permanent disability was assessed at 35%. She remained admitted in the PGI for 4/1-2 months. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation to her as follows: Permanent disability: 75,000/- Medicines: 23,500/- Pain and sufferings: 75,000/- Total: 1,73,500/- 16 Keeping in view the permanent disability suffered by Smt. Kandla Nijhawan, I feel that the amount of compensation awarded to her by the Tribunal in the form of permanent disability appears to be inadequate. The amount is enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,30,000/-. The amount is enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,30,000/-. Thus, now the claimant is entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 55,000/- besides the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 17. In the net result, all the F.A.Os bearing Nos. 772, 773, 774 and 775 of 1990 are accepted and the appellants of these F.A.Os are entitled to get the following amount, fully detailed as under: 1) Vaibhav Nijhawan: Rs. 2,05,000/- besides the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 2) Vivek Nijhawan: Rs. 93,000/- besides the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 3) Mahima Nijhawan: Rs. 75,000/- besides the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 4) Kandla Nijhawan: Rs. 55,000/- besides the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The aforesaid enhanced amount shall be paid by respondents No. 1 to 3, jointly and severally, to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of pronouncement of the award by this Court. In default, the respondents No. 1 to 3 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of award passed by this Court till the realization of the same. The counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 1000/- for each appeal.