JUDGMENT 1. - Arguments were reheard on 17th July, 2013. 2. This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation filed by the injured appellant against the award dated 2nd February, 1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 117/1995, Lt. Col. Anoop Malhotra v. Chhatar Singh and others whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim of the claimant appellant has awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- under various heads with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the injured claimed appellant who was Lt. Col. in the Indian Army on 19th July, 1994 had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal with the averments that he was going by his Car No. RRX 613 from Jaipur to Noida. He himself was driving the said car and when he reached opposite Lok Vikas Bank, Kotputli on the National Highway No. 8, Tanker No. DL-1-GA-3075 coming from Delhi side driven rashly and negligently by its driver collided with the car with the result he sustained 7 injuries on his body and the said car was also damaged. Further averments made by the claimant in the claim petition were that at the time of accident, he was 39 years of age, was posted as Lt. Colonel in regular Army and was getting Rs. 11,094/- per month as salary with other perks. As such, the claimant appellant filed the claim petition claiming total claim of Rs. 53,86,255/- as compensation from the driver/ owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle/aforesaid tanker. 4. The driver and owner of the tanker did not attend the proceedings before the Tribunal, therefore, vide order dated 25-8-1995 ex parte proceedings were taken against them. 5. The insurer of the vehicle filed its reply to the claim petition and denied the allegations made by the claimant appellant in the claim petition inter alia mentioning that the owner, driver and insurer of the car No. RRX- 613 were not made party to the claim petition. The insurer has further averred that the driver of the Tanker was not having effective and valid driving licence and that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the claimant. 6. The insurer has further averred that the driver of the Tanker was not having effective and valid driving licence and that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the claimant. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following five issues were framed(Vernacular matter is omitted - Ed.) 7. The Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties and hearing both the sides, recorded findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the injured claimant. Issue No. 3 has been decided in favour of claimant injured-appellant to the extent of entitlement for the compensation. Issue No. 4 has been decided against the insurance Company. While granting relief under Issue No. 5 and findings of issue No. 3, the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 2nd February, 1999 partly allowed the claim of the claimant appellant and further awarded compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- with interest at the rate 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 15th March, 1995 till the date of realisation. The main award passed by the Tribunal under various heads is as under : (1) Rs. 2,00,000/- has been given for mental agony, physical pain on account 40% disability etc.; (2) Rs. 15,000/- awarded on account of half pay and other leaves taken; (3) Rs. 1000/- awarded for going to Delhi by Ambulance; (4) Rs. 15,000/- for Nourishing; (5) Rs. 14,000/- cost of nourishing diet; (6) Rs. 30,000/- cost of Wheel Chair; (7) Rs. 50,000/- on account of unfit of Army and curtailment of future promotion. Total compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- has been awarded which requires enhancement on each item, as claimed in the petition." 8. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, counsel for the claimant appellant submitted that award of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head of mental agony and physical pain on account of 40% disability is lower in side because the effect of loss of amenities attached to the post of Colonel has not been considered by the Tribunal, therefore, the amount of compensation under this head is liable to be enhanced. 9. Further submission of counsel for the claimant appellant is that for rendering the appellant unfit for further promotion, lump sum amount of Rs. 9. Further submission of counsel for the claimant appellant is that for rendering the appellant unfit for further promotion, lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- is too much on lower side as the Tribunal has committed a serious error of law in not considering the fact that the appellant who was holding the rank of Lt. Colonel in regular army and was having many rights and privileges, made permanently unfit for the same which had deprived him from the aforesaid rights and privileges like; authority, command and status of Lt. Colonel. He was also deprived from his future promotion on the post of Colonel also and thus has caused irreparable loss to him. Merely his appointment on the rank and pay of Colonel in Defence Research and Development Organisation, Pune which is a civil wing of the army, will not compensate him in the aforesaid manner. He also submitted that when the statement of the claimant appellant was recorded on 23rd May, 1997 his pay on the post of Colonel was revised to Rs. 32,000-33,000 on account of revision of pay scales on the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. 10. Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that award of Rs. 50,000/- under the head `for rendering the claimant appellant unfit from regular Army and curtailment of future promotion' is just and proper. He further submitted that award of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head 'mental agony, physical pain on account of 40% disability etc.' is also just and proper, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any enhancement. 11. I have gone through the record of the Misc. Appeal as well as the record of the Tribunal and further considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the parties. 12. On consideration of the same I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have compensated the claimant appellant for the loss of amenities, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head `for mental agony, physical pain on account of 40% disability etc.' is on lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/- and further with the rank of Lt. 2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head `for mental agony, physical pain on account of 40% disability etc.' is on lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/- and further with the rank of Lt. Colonel in regular Army certain rights and privileges like authority, command and status are attached which are not attached with the post of Colonel in the civil wing of the army and the appellant has also been deprived of from further promotion. Rendering the appellant unfit for the regular army has resulted in deprivation of authority, command and status, therefore, an irreparable loss has been caused to the injured claimant appellant. Since the case is of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation is to be assessed with reference to the aforesaid effect of rendering the appellant unfit for the army. Therefore, the award of Rs. 50,000/- under the head `unfit of Army and curtailment of future promotion' is too much on lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs). Thus, the enhancement under the two heads is as under : 1. for mental agony, physical pain on account of 40% disability; for the loss of amenities : from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- 2. for being unfit of Army and curtailment of future promotion; for the loss of authority, command and status of the post of Colonel in regular Army : from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 4,50,000/- Total enhancement Rs. 6,50,000/- 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 9,75,000/-. The claimant appellant is entitled to recover the enhanced amount with 12% annual interest from date of filing of the claim petitionAppeal partly allowed. *******