JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 30th June, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,51,100/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, with right of recovery, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The owner, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only question needs to be determined in this appeal is – Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is adequate? 5. To answer the above question, it is necessary to give a brief reference of the facts of the case. 6. The claimant filed the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), wherein it was pleaded by the claimant that on 18th August, 2004, he was on duty with bus bearing No.HP-34-3161, belonging to Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (for short, HRTC), which was enroute from Palampur to Delhi. At about 4.30 a.m., when the said bus reached near Taraori, it struck with the tanker bearing registration No.HR-29D-1855, which was parked on the National Highway by its driver without taking any precautions. As a result of the said collision, the claimant sustained multiple injuries, admitted in Government Hospital Taraori (Haryana) w.e.f. 19.8.2004 to 21.8.2004, thereafter was taken to Hospital at Palampur and remained under treatment for a long time. It was alleged that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker. 7. In regard to the accident, FIR bearing No.135/04, dated 19.8.2004, was registered at Police Station, Taraoari, District Karnal, Haryana, against the driver of the offending tanker. Hence, the claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs.20.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given therein. 8. Owner of the offending tanker (respondent No.2) chose not to contest the claim petition, hence was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. Hence, the claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs.20.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given therein. 8. Owner of the offending tanker (respondent No.2) chose not to contest the claim petition, hence was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. The driver and the insurer (respondents No.1 and 3, respectively) contested the claim petition by filing separate replies. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed: “1. Whether the respondent No.1 with his rash and negligent driving on 19.8.2004 caused injuries on the person of petitioner? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR 4. Whether accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of Driver of HRTC Bus? OPR 5. Whether respondent No1. was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 6. Whether Tanker was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-3 7. Relief.” 10. In order to prove their claim, the parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the drivers of the tanker and that of the bus were rash and negligent. However, the Tribunal, while awarding Rs.1,51,100/- as compensation in favour of the claimant-injured, fastened the liability on the driver and the owner of the offending tanker. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and is required to be enhanced accordingly. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded paltry amount under the heads pain and suffering, medical expenses and transportation charges and that the Tribunal has failed to assess the effect of 35% permanent disability suffered by the claimant. It was also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation under both heads i.e. pecuniary and non-pecuniary. 13. All the issues came to be decided against the respondents. They have not questioned the said findings. The claimant has also not questioned the same, except on the ground of adequacy of compensation, thus attained finality. 14. It was also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation under both heads i.e. pecuniary and non-pecuniary. 13. All the issues came to be decided against the respondents. They have not questioned the said findings. The claimant has also not questioned the same, except on the ground of adequacy of compensation, thus attained finality. 14. It is apt to record herein that an appeal under Section 173 of the Act is essentially similar to an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short CPC). The Apex Court in its latest decision in case titled as U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Km. Mamta and others, AIR 2016 SC 948 , has held that an Appeal under Section 173 of the Act is essentially alike Section 96 of the CPC and, therefore, the Appellate Court is under legal obligation to decide all issues, after appreciating the entire evidence. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 24 of the said judgment hereunder: “24. An appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence. [See National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., 2000 10 SCC 158 and State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Navdeep Kuur & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 680 ].” 15. Thus, this Court has determined all issues in terms of the mandate of Section 173 of the Act. 16. Coming to the controversy of adequacy of compensation, which revolves around part of issue No.2 i.e. “to what compensation the petitioner is entitled…..” it has been proved on record that the claimant-injured sustained 35% disability, which is permanent in nature. It has also been proved on record that the claimant remained under treatment for a pretty long time. 17. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in, AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. It has also been proved on record that the claimant remained under treatment for a pretty long time. 17. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in, AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787 and Kavita versus Deepak and others, 2012 AIR SCW 4771, has clearly laid down the principles as to how compensation has to be awarded in cases where the claimants have suffered permanent disability and how the assessment is to be made. 18. The Apex Court in its latest decision in Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir and others, (2015) 7 SCC 252 , while discussing its earlier pronouncements, observed that in injury cases, the compensation would include not only the actual expenses incurred, but the compensation has to be assessed keeping in view the struggle which the injured has to face throughout his life due to the permanent disability and the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment, loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering to undergo for the whole life etc. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 18 of the said decision hereunder: “11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to struggle and face different challenges as being handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to do his normal work of his job as a driver. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to do his normal work of his job as a driver. Therefore, it is submitted that to meet the ends of justice it would be just and proper to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma caused to him and a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. …………. …………… …………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. and considering the suffering undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.” 19. The claim of the appellant for enhancement has to be tested in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions supra. 20. The claimant has examined PW-1 Dr. D.S. Chandel, who has proved the disability certificated Ext.PW-1/A. This witness has stated that the petitioner “suffered permanent disability to the extent of 35% due to stiffness of both hips after fracture of pelvis and subluxation of S.I. Joints.” The doctor has also opined that due to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, he would not be able to perform the duty of a driver or of a conductor. 21. The claimant-injured, at the time of accident, was serving in the HRTC as Conductor. It has been proved on record that due to the injury sustained by the claimant-injured, he cannot act as a driver or a conductor and was assigned a light duty on booking counter. 22. 21. The claimant-injured, at the time of accident, was serving in the HRTC as Conductor. It has been proved on record that due to the injury sustained by the claimant-injured, he cannot act as a driver or a conductor and was assigned a light duty on booking counter. 22. The question is whether the disability suffered by the claimant has affected the earning capacity of the injured, if so, to what extent? 23. The Tribunal, after discussing the pleadings and the evidence, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,51,100/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.1,01,054/- under the heads ‘medical expenses’ and ‘taxi charges’, which amount, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be just and appropriate. 24. It has been pleaded by the claimant in the Claim Petition that he, at the time of accident, was getting salary to the tune Rs.7,426/- as Conductor and was also earning Rs.5,000/- per month on account of overtime. No evidence has been led by the claimant in support of his assertion that he was earning Rs.5,000/- for working after duty hours. The fact that the claimant was earning Rs.7,426/- per month was not disputed by the respondents by leading evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it is held that, at the time of accident, the claimant was earning Rs.7,426/- per month or say Rs.7,500/- per month. 25. The accident had taken place on 19th August, 2004, where after, as pleaded in the claim petition, the petitioner remained admitted in the hospital till 21st August, 2004, was discharged from the hospital on the request of the claimant and again remained admitted w.e.f. 25th August, 2004 to 31st August, 2004. The claimant also pleaded that due to the injury sustained by him, he had to avail different kinds of leave. 26. The claimant has placed on record office order, dated 3rd February, 2005, Ext.PW-2/A, whereby 120 days ‘special disability leave’ w.e.f. 19.8.2004 to 16.12.2004 and 47 days commuted leave w.e.f. 17.12.2004 to 1.2.2005, was sanctioned in his favour. Ext.PW-2/B is the office order, dated 30th May, 2015, which also shows that commuted leave for 57 days w.e.f. 2nd February, 2005 to 30th March, 2005, and earned leave for 42 days w.e.f. 31st March 2005 to 11th May, 2005, was sanctioned in favour of the claimant ex post facto. 27. Ext.PW-2/B is the office order, dated 30th May, 2015, which also shows that commuted leave for 57 days w.e.f. 2nd February, 2005 to 30th March, 2005, and earned leave for 42 days w.e.f. 31st March 2005 to 11th May, 2005, was sanctioned in favour of the claimant ex post facto. 27. The discussion in the preceding paragraph shows that the claimant, after sustaining the injury, remained on leave for 266 days, i.e. for about 9 months, for medical treatment. The income of the claimant, as has been held above, was Rs.7,500/- per month. The Tribunal has gone astray in not awarding anything for the period during which the claimant remained under treatment. The Tribunal must have taken into account the factum that the claimant did not avail leave on his own volition, but, for the treatment of the injuries sustained by him, he was forced to go on leave. Thus, the claimant was to be awarded compensation under the head ‘loss of earning during leave’. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.7500/- x 9 = Rs.67,500/- under the head ‘loss of earning during leave’. 28. The next question to be determined is whether the permanent disability suffered by the claimant has resulted into loss of future income. The claimant has specifically pleaded and proved that due to the accident, he was unable to perform his duties as driver/conductor and accordingly, vide office order Ext.PW-2/C, he was asked to work on the booking counter. 29. Therefore, what can be inferred is that the accident has definitely shattered the physical frame of the claimant. The claimant was 43 years of age at the time of accident and, as has come in the statement of PW-1 Dr. D.S. Chandel, he would not be able to drive any vehicle throughout his life or perform the job of a Conductor. No doubt, at the present, there is no loss of income to the claimant since he has been assigned the job on a booking counter and has not been rendered jobless, but, by guess work, it can be held that after superannuation, the claimant would not be able to act as driver, thereby can be said to have lost earning capacity after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 58 years. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of future income’. 30. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of future income’. 30. In view of the above, the next question arises as to what is the just and appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case. Having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 read with the 2nd Schedule attached with the Act, it is held that multiplier of ‘6’ is just and appropriate, and is applied accordingly. 31. Having said so, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 6 = Rs. 5,40,000/- under the head ‘loss of future income’. 32. Apart from the above, The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/-, under the head ‘pain and suffering’, which, in the facts of the case, is on the lower side. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the claimant suffered a lot, which fact is evident from the leave availed by the claimant for treatment and also from the statement of the Dr. D.S. Chandel (PW-1). Not only this, because of the disability suffered by the claimant, he has to struggle throughout his life. In the given circumstances, read with the law laid down by the Apx Court, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 33. The claimant is also deprived of all comforts and amenities, thus, is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 34. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the claimant is also entitled to attendant charges for the period for which he remained on leave for treatment i.e. for 9 months. By guess work, it is held that the claimant would have spent Rs.5,000/- per month on attendant charges and accordingly, held entitled to Rs.5,000/- x 9 = Rs.45,000/- under the head ‘attendant charges’. 35. The claimant would have also spent at least 200/- per day i.e. Rs.6,000/- per month on account of special diet during the period of treatment. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.6,000/- x 9 = Rs.54,000/- under the head ‘special diet’. 36. In addition to above, the claimant may have to undergo medical check-ups/treatment, at intervals, throughout his life. The claimant would have also spent at least 200/- per day i.e. Rs.6,000/- per month on account of special diet during the period of treatment. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.6,000/- x 9 = Rs.54,000/- under the head ‘special diet’. 36. In addition to above, the claimant may have to undergo medical check-ups/treatment, at intervals, throughout his life. I deem it proper to award Rs.20,000/- under the head ‘future medical treatment’. 37. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads ‘medical expenses’ and ‘transportation charges’ is maintained. 38. Having glance of the above discussion, the claimant is awarded Rs.11,27,600/-, under different heads as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of earning during leave Rs.67,500/- 2. Loss of future income Rs.5,40,000/- 3. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,50,000/- 4. Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,50,000/- 5. Attendant charges Rs.45,000/- 6. Special diet Rs.54,000/- 7. Future medical treatment Rs.20,000/- 8. Medical expenses and transportation charges Rs.1,01,100/- Total Rs.11,27,600/- 39. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of passing of the impugned award, till deposit. 40. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount, along with interest, in favour of the claimant, after proper identification. The insurer is at liberty to recover the same from the driver and the owner. 41. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.