JUDGMENT Alka Sarin, J. - The present order shall disposed of FAO No.1815 of 2013 and Cross-Objection No. 135-CI I of 2014 preferred by the Insurance Company and the claimant, respectively, against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, dated 11.12.2012. 2. A brief matrix of the facts necessary for deciding the present appeal and cross-objections are as under. 3. The claimant, namely, Amit Kumar stated in his claim petition that on 29.11.2008 he was going from Ludhiana side to Mundian Kalan on Chandigarh Road on a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-10BY-6654. Tarsem Lal was pillion riding with him. At about 1.15 P.M., when they reached Mundian Khurd, a truck bearing registration No.PB-03H-1215, which was being driven by respondent No.2 herein in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the impact, claimant along with Tarsem Lal fell on the road and received multiple grievous injuries. As the condition of the claimant was serious, he was moved from Kalra Hospital, Jamalpur to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana. The accident was witnessed by Parveen Kumar and Varinder Singh alias Vicky, who were following the claimant on another motorcycle. FIR No.282 dated 30.11.2008 was registered on the statement of Parveen Kumar. It was further stated in the claim petition that the claimant was 23 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as Field Officer in Esstex International, 836, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. It was also stated that the claimant had become totally disabled as a result of the accident. 4. The driver of the vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal and was proceeded against ex-parte. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the truck and the Insurance Company. The owner of the truck, respondent No.3 herein, filed a separate written statement taking a preliminary objection that the claim petition was not maintainable and that he had employed Sarwan Singh, the driver of the vehicle, after taking driving test and further that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. It was also stated in the written statement that a false case has been registered and that no accident actually took place. It was also denied that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 (respondent No.2 herein). It was also stated in the written statement that a false case has been registered and that no accident actually took place. It was also denied that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 (respondent No.2 herein). 5. The appellant, i.e., Insurance Company also filed a written statement and raised the ground that the driver of the vehicle respondent No.2 herein did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and further that the truck in question did not have a valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of the alleged accident. On merits, the factum of the accident was denied. It was also denied that the claimant had become permanently disabled. 6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, awarded a compensation of Rs.17,93,075/- to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, under the following heads:- " i) Compensation on account of treatment Rs.2,81,000/- ii) Special diet Rs.7,500/- iii) Compensation on account of loss of future Rs.15,12,000/-earnings Total Rs.17,93,075/-" 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal challenging the award primarily on the ground that it was a case of contributory negligence and that the evidence was completely ignored by the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance Company is also aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant, on the other hand, has filed cross objections dissatisfied with the compensation awarded. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and, with their able assistance, have been through the record of the case. 9. It is contended by Mr. Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, that it was purely a case of contributory negligence and the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the site-plan, Ex.R1, which clearly reveals that the claimant himself was driving on the wrong side of the road. It has further been contended by Mr. Talwar, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, that the compensation awarded to the claimant is excessive. 10. Per contra, Mr. It has further been contended by Mr. Talwar, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, that the compensation awarded to the claimant is excessive. 10. Per contra, Mr. V.M. Gupta, learned counsel for the cross-objector and for respondent No.1 in the appeal, has contended that there is no pleading in the written statement of either the Insurance Company or the owner of the truck wherein the ground qua contributory negligence has been raised. He has further contended that the site plan, Ex.R1, was neither put to the claimant nor any suggestion was given to him in the cross-examination that he was driving on the wrong side of the road. It is further contended by Mr. Gupta that the compensation awarded is highly inadequate, inasmuch as, the complainant has suffered 100% disability due to traumatic paraplegia (fracture of D4 and D5). He further contended that the claimant is living in a vegetative state totally dependent on an attendant and on his family members for his day-to-day existence. It was further contended that no amount has been granted by the Tribunal towards future prospects, attendant charges, loss of enjoyment of life, pain and sufferings and loss of marriage prospects, etc. To substantiate his case, he has relied upon Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2019(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 484; Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, reported as (2011) 1 SCC 343 ; Jagdish vs. Mohan & Ors., 2018(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 308 and Afnees (Unconscious) Rep. Thr Mother vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vadakara and others, (2018) 13 SCC 119 . 11. The claimant Amit Kumar, in his statement, has clearly stated that as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered a lot of pain and agony as also financially. He has also stated that he is not in a position to do any work and cannot even move on his own. No suggestion had been put to him that he is not able to move on his own without assistance. Ex.PW6/A is the discharge summary, which reads as under:- "DISCHARGE SUMMARY Name:- Amit Kumar Age:- 23Y/M CR No.:-B02032 Date of Admission:03/12/2008 Date of Discharge:-13/12/08 Consultant Incharge:- Dr. Vyom Bhargav MS, Mch (Neuro Surgery) Diagnosis:- RSA having # D4 & D5 Procedure:- anterior D5 decompression and fusion (Endoscopic) Chief Complaints:- Pt. came with Alleged H/o RTA with H/o Loss of sensation below umbilicus. Vyom Bhargav MS, Mch (Neuro Surgery) Diagnosis:- RSA having # D4 & D5 Procedure:- anterior D5 decompression and fusion (Endoscopic) Chief Complaints:- Pt. came with Alleged H/o RTA with H/o Loss of sensation below umbilicus. Unconsciousness Backache Clinical History:- Pt. met with accident when he was going on bike hit by truck, fell down & became unconscious. Pt. was taken in CMC hospital where MRI done on 03/12/08. Pt took LAMA & came here for treatment. OE:- CNS:- Both lower limbs = power 0 Deep Tendon reflexes = Absent B/L Plantar equivocal, superficial sensation Nil." 12. Exhibit PW9/A is the disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana, stating therein that the claimant Am it Kumar has become permanently disabled due to the traumatic paraplegia and has 100% disability. 13. First of all, I would deal with the argument raised by Mr. Talwar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, regarding the contributory negligence. A perusal of the written statement filed by both the Insurance Company as well as by the owner of the truck reveals that the said plea of contributory negligence was neither raised in the written statement nor argued before the Tribunal. Mr. Talwar was unable to show even a single line wherein the plea qua the contributory negligence had been raised by the Insurance Company or the owner of the truck. That being so, the argument of Mr. Talwar deserves to be rejected, inasmuch as, a fact, which was neither pleaded nor proved, cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. 14. The next argument raised by Mr. Talwar is qua the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. Since the claimant Amit Kumar has also filed cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation awarded, I shall deal with both the argument of Mr. Talwar and the cross-objector together. In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court have held as follows:- "General principles relating to compensation in injury cases 5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376 , R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467 ). 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the fo I lowing: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life." 15. Then, again, in the case of Jagdish (supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court have held as under:- "8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects: (i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; (ii) Loss of income including future income; (iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities; (iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and (v) Loss of expectation of life. 16. In Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 (1) R.C.R.(Civil) 509 : 2011 (12) SCALE 658 this Court held: "The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." 17. In K. Suresh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2013(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 312 : (2012)12 SCC 274 , this Court adverted to the earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra vs. Randhir Singh (1990) 3 SCC 723 and B. Kothandapani vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 206 : (2011) 6 SCC 420 . In K. Suresh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2013(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 312 : (2012)12 SCC 274 , this Court adverted to the earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra vs. Randhir Singh (1990) 3 SCC 723 and B. Kothandapani vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 206 : (2011) 6 SCC 420 . The Court held that compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for the first head relates to the impairment of a person's capacity while the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. 18. In Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company Limited, 2011(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 817 : (2011) 10 SCC 683 , this Court adverted to the earlier decisions in R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) (Pvt) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 , Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 174 : (2009) 6 SCC 1 , Reshma Kumari vs. Madam Mohan, 2009 (3) R.C.R.(CiviI) 908 : (2009) 13 SCC 422 , Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2010(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 917 : (2010) 10 SCC 254 , and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 101 : (2011) 1 SCC 343 and held thus: "18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." (Id at page 693) These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi vs. MD Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2012 (4) R.C.R.(Civil) 945 : Civil Appeal No. 7750 of 2012, decided on 1 November 2012 delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was)." 19. The same principles, as laid down in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), have been reiterated in the case of Parminder Singh (supra). 20. The claimant, in the present case, has suffered traumatic paraplegia. Paraplegia is an impairment in motor or sensory function of the lower extremities. As per the discharge summary, there is zero power in both the lower limbs and deep tendon reflexes are also absent. The Civil Surgeon, as per the disability certificate, Ex.PW9/A, has also certified that the claimant has been rendered permanently disabled due to traumatic paraplegia and suffers from 100% disability. Both the discharge summary as well as disability certificate stood duly proved on record. 21. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court and the evidence on record of the present case, I find myself unable to accept the argument raised by Mr. Talwar that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. In fact, I am of the view that the cross-objections filed by the claimant deserve to be allowed, inasmuch as, the compensation awarded is on the lower side. The claimant has suffered 100% disability and is unable to do things on his own and has to be dependent on his family members/attendant for his day-to-day existence. The claimant was a young man of 23 years at the time of accident and had a bright future ahead of him. However, due to the unfortunate accident, he has been rendered a paraplegic and, what to talk about working for a living, he cannot even perform his day-to-day activities without the assistance of an attendant or his family members. The Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, has not granted anything on account of (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure; (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability; (iii) future medical expenses Non pecuniary damages (General damages); (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries; (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 22. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to grant the fo11owing compensation: - Sr. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. 22. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to grant the fo11owing compensation: - Sr. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Annual earnings Rs. 84,000/- (monthly income Rs. 7000x12) 2. Annual dependency after adding Future prospects @ 40% Rs. 1,17,600/- 3. Multiplier of 18 Rs. 21,16,800/- 4. Future medical expenses and attendant charges Rs.10,00,000/- 5. Loss of amenities and/or loss of prospects of marriage Rs.5,00,000/- 6. Pain and sufferings Rs. 5,00,000/- 7. Medical treatment undergone Rs. 2,81,000/- 8. Special diet Rs.2,00,000/- Total compensation Rs. 45,97,800/- 23. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 28,04,725/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 24. With the above modification, the FAO and the Cross-Objections both stand disposed of.