JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the award dated 15th January, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 43 of 2008, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with liability, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. By the medium of FAO No. 194 of 2011, the insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability. 4. In FAO No. 340 of 2011, the claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. Alongwith FAO No. 94 of 2011, driver and owner have also filed Cross Objection No. 323 of 2011, on the grounds taken in the memo of cross-objections. 6. In view of the above, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 7. The claimant had filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 8. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Car No. HP-20C-0911 by its driver-respondent No. 2, as alleged? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and which of the respondent? …OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? ….OPRs 4. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident? …..OPR-3 5. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? …OPR-3 6. Relief.” 10. The claimant examined LHC Parma Nand (PW- 1), Sanjeev Kumar (PW-2), Rajesh Kumar (PW-3), Smt. Anjana Kumari (PW-4), Dr. …..OPR-3 5. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? …OPR-3 6. Relief.” 10. The claimant examined LHC Parma Nand (PW- 1), Sanjeev Kumar (PW-2), Rajesh Kumar (PW-3), Smt. Anjana Kumari (PW-4), Dr. Ramesh Chauhan (PW-5) and Dr. Neelam Joshi (PW-6). On the other hand, the owner and driver stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and RW-2, respectively. The owner also examined her husbnad Dev Dutt Sharma as RW-3. The insurer has not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the driver and owner has remained unrebutted. 11. Admittedly, the FIR No. 80 of 2008, dated 19.04.2008, under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was registered against driver Joginder Singh, who was facing trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur. 12. The claimant has examined LHC Parma Nand (PW-1), who has proved FIR as Ext. PW-1/A. He has also examined Sanjeev Kumar, Criminal Ahlmad of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, as PW-2, who has stated that FIR No. 80 of 2008, was lodged against Joginder Singh and final report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, where said Joginder Singh is facing trail. 13. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on the file to the effect that driver Joginder Singh was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 14. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 to 5. Issues No. 3 to 5. 15. The respondents have not led any evidence to prove Issues No. 3 to 5. Viewed thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 to 5 are upheld. 16. The factum of insurance is admitted. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the owner has committed any willful breach. Accordingly, the insurer has to satisfy the liability. Issue No. 2. 17. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in assessing the compensation for the following reasons. 18. In para-46 of the impugned award, the Tribunal has recorded that the claimant has tendered in evidence copies of cash memos/receipts Ext. Accordingly, the insurer has to satisfy the liability. Issue No. 2. 17. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in assessing the compensation for the following reasons. 18. In para-46 of the impugned award, the Tribunal has recorded that the claimant has tendered in evidence copies of cash memos/receipts Ext. PW-6/A-5 to Ext. PW6/A-18, which disclose that the claimant has incurred the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,00,233/- on treatment. Thus, the claimant has proved that he was entitled to Rs. 1,00,233/- under the head ‘medical expenses’. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- under the head ‘medical expenses'. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to the tune of Rs. 1,00,233/- under the head ‘medical expenses’. 19. It has come on the record that the claimant has suffered 20% permanent disability. Though, Dr. Ramesh Chauhan (PW-5) has stated that it has not affected his earning capacity, but the claimant has undergone pain and suffering and has to undergo the same throughout his life. Thus, I deem it proper to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 20. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in not awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. Thus, I deem it proper to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 21. It is also the admitted fact that the claimant remained admitted in the hospital and the services of an attendant were required which he had while he was admitted in the hospital and also for future. He also incurred expenses for visiting hospital. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- under the ‘attendant charges’, which is too meager. Thus, I deem it proper to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- under the head ‘attendant charges and other charges’. 22. Having said so, it is held that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,233 + Rs. 50,000/- + 50,000/- + 25,000/- total amounting to Rs. 2,25,233/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 23. The amount of compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 24. 1,00,233 + Rs. 50,000/- + 50,000/- + 25,000/- total amounting to Rs. 2,25,233/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 23. The amount of compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 24. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith interest, within a period of six weeks from today before the Registry. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing in his account. 25. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of and the cross objections are dismissed. 26. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.