JUDGMENT Harkesh Manuja, J. This order of mine shall dispose of the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation while impugning the award dated 03.10.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (in brevity, 'the Tribunal'), whereby, compensation of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded to the appellant/ claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Further, this order shall also dispose of cross-objections filed at the instance of Owner-respondent No. 1 on the aspect of liability being fixed upon her. Brief Facts 2. The appellant/ claimant being injured filed claim petition before learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident alleging rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 3. 3. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 and awarded compensation in the following manner :- Sr. No. Nature Amount in Rupees 1. Hospitalization/Medical expenses Rs. 20,000/- 2. Pain & Suffering Rs. 10,000/- 3. Attendant charges, Transportation and Special Diet Rs. 5,000/- Total: Rs. 35,000/- 4. Being aggrieved against the award dated 03.10.2007, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation. Cross-objections have been filed at the instance of owner-respondent No. 1, only to the limited extent of liability being fixed upon her. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver upheld by the Tribunal are not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, they are not being repeated here. Arguments 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant submitted that no compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of loss of earning/future earning capacity taking into consideration the permanent disability suffered by the appellant, despite of two disability certificates being placed on record and appellant being bed-ridden for 4 months. He contended that though the accident took place in 2002, merely because it was mentioned in disability certificates (which were issued in 2004/2005) that there are chances of improvement, no compensation was granted. He stressed that Ld. Tribunal should have considered that disability, even if minor, existed even after 3 years and at least for that period of time, compensation under appropriate heads should have been awarded. He stressed that Ld. Tribunal should have considered that disability, even if minor, existed even after 3 years and at least for that period of time, compensation under appropriate heads should have been awarded. He further submitted that in view of disability certificates, appellant was found to have 8% impairment in limbs and some functional disability on that account should have been assessed. He concluded his argument by submitting that not only compensation granted for transportation, attendant charges, and the nutritious diet are on lower side and liable to be enhanced in view of the long hospitalization from 07.11.2002 to 19.11.2002, but compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads is also on very lower side. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Cross-objector made submission only to the limited extent of liability being fixed upon her and contended that the Learned Tribunal, while granting the recovery rights to the respondent no.2 i.e Insurance Company, failed to appreciate that the owner i.e. respondent no.1 has appeared before the Ld. Tribunal as her own witness as RW-2 and deposed that the license possessed by the Driver - Kuldeep Singh i.e. respondent no.3 is a genuine document. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "National Insurance Company Ltd v. Swaran Singh and Others" reported as 2004(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 114, he submitted that once the owner satisfied himself, then the liability could not be fastened upon the owner even if the license was found to be fake later on, as the owner was not expected to go the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the license. Arguments advanced by Insurance Company 7. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company while opposing the contentions raised by owner of the offending vehicle submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly granted the recovery rights as Driver- Kuldeep Singh was not possessing valid Driving Licence as the same was found to be a fake document as substantiated by the testimony of RW-3 Senior Assistant from the office of Licensing Authority, Mathura. He also objected to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and submitted that appellant has been adequately compensated on the basis of evidence brought on record by her and she is not entitled for any enhancement in the compensation. Discussion 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused paper-book as well as records of the case. Discussion 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused paper-book as well as records of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant as well as respondent No.1-Cross-objector/owner of the offending vehicle. XOBJ No. 192-CII-2015 - On the aspect of liability 9. Let us first discuss the submission made on behalf of ld. Counsel for respondent No.1- Cross-objector/owner of the offending vehicle. Owner / respondent No.1- Cross-objector while deposing before the ld. Tribunal as RW-2, brought on record the photocopy of driving license of driver-respondent No 3 as Ex-R1 and deposed that his driving license was a genuine document. Relevant part of her deposition is reproduced hereunder: "****I am a summoned witness. I have brought the photocopy of driving licence of Sh. Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Sunder Lal, which is Ex.R-1. I have also brought the photocopy of registration certificate as well as certificate of fitness, of truck no. HR-37- 3437, which is Ex.R-2. I have not brought the permit issued to the aforesaid truck for plying the same in the State of Punjab valid on 7.11.2002. I am having a valid permit effective at the relevant time which I will produce in the court. I did not get the driving licence Ex.R-1 verified but it is a genuine document. ***" 9.1 Hon'ble Apex Court in "United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru", reported as (2003) 3 SCC 338 held that if the driver produces a driving license which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the license has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. Relevant para from this judgement is reproduced hereunder: "20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of its looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competence to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competence to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that Insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTO's, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of section 149(2)(a)(ii). The Insurance Company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake the Insurance Company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly even in such a case the Insurance Company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which had been laid down in Skandia's, Sohan Lal Passi's and Kamla's case. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view." 9.2 Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company", reported as 2013(10) SCC 217 , held that when the owner of the vehicle hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving license along with satisfying himself as to the competence of the driver but the owner cannot be expected to go to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving license with the licensing authority. It was further held that the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the license duly verified from the licensing authority. Relevant para from this judgement is reproduced hereunder: "8. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh's case (supra). If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable for the compensation." 9.3 There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any clause in the insurance policy mandating the verification of driving license from the issuing authority. Additionally, neither there was any cross-examination nor any suggestion was put to the owner of the vehicle that she did not show due diligence while employing the driver - respondent No 3. In that circumstance, once the owner employed the driver on the basis of a driving license which appeared to be a genuine document, in view of the above judgements, liability cannot be fastened upon respondent No.1-Cross-objector/owner of the offending vehicle. 9.4. In that circumstance, once the owner employed the driver on the basis of a driving license which appeared to be a genuine document, in view of the above judgements, liability cannot be fastened upon respondent No.1-Cross-objector/owner of the offending vehicle. 9.4. In view of discussion made above, cross objection bearing XOBJ No. 192-CII-2015 filed on behalf of respondent No.1- owner of the offending vehicle, is allowed and the award passed by the ld. Tribunal to the extent of granting recovery rights to respondent No 2 - Insurance Company are set aside. FAO-331-2008 - on the aspect of enhancement of compensation Assessment under heads 'loss of income' and 'special diet, attendant and conveyance' 10. To prove her case, appellant/ claimant tendered in evidence her affidavit as ExPA., copy of M.L.R. of Smt. Parvinder Kaur as ExP1, copy of Discharge and Follow-up card as ExP2, copy of Disability Certificate of Smt. Parvinder Kaur as ExP3, copy of Income Tax Return of Parvinder Kaur as ExP4, copy of F.I.R. as ExPX and two disability certificates as ExPY and ExPZ . 10.1 In this accident, appellant/ claimant suffered fracture of her left arm, fracture of lower mandible, fracture on three fingers and other multiple injuries. It was stated in her affidavit that not only she remained admitted in P.G.I. from 7.11.2002 to 19.11.2002, but she also remained bed-ridden for 4 months and had to visit PGI frequently for follow up treatment which was corroborated from Discharge and Follow Up Card (Ex-P2). Her injuries were also supported by documentary evidence of the M.L.R.. From Discharge and Follow Up Card (ExP2), her frequent visits to PGI till 09.07.2003 are also on record. In that eventuality, even if she was not bedridden, it can be safely presumed that at least for 4 months, she could not have pursued her profession and there was loss of earning for 4 months. In view of her Income Tax Return being on record as Ex-P4, her annual income being Rs. 1,43,642/-, her monthly income comes out to be Rs. 11,970/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 12,000/-. Thus, compensation under the head of loss of income for 4 months comes to Rs. 48,000 (Rs. 12,000x4). 10.2 As per record, she suffered multiple serious injuries i.e. fracture of her left arm, fracture of lower mandible, fracture on three fingers and other multiple injuries. 11,970/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 12,000/-. Thus, compensation under the head of loss of income for 4 months comes to Rs. 48,000 (Rs. 12,000x4). 10.2 As per record, she suffered multiple serious injuries i.e. fracture of her left arm, fracture of lower mandible, fracture on three fingers and other multiple injuries. She remained admitted in PGI for 13 days, was operated twice and plastic surgery was also done on her fingers. Additionally, she had to visit PGI, Chandigarh number of times for her treatment. In that view, compensation granted for special diet, attendant and conveyance @ Rs. 5,000/- is on very lower side and compensation granted to the appellant/ claimant under these heads is assessed @ Rs. 50,000/-. Assessment under head 'loss of future income' 11. Appellant/ claimant brought on record two disability certificates, summary of which are as below: i. Vide Disability certificate (Ex PY) dated 27.10.2005, she was physically handicapped to the extent of 8% impairment in relation to her limbs. In this certificate, there is a note which says that this condition is likely to improve and further reassessment was recommended after a period of three months/years. ii. Vide Disability certificate (ExP2) dated 26.08.2004, she is physically handicapped and has 20% impairment in relation to her face (both esthetic and functional). In this certificate as well there is a note which says that the condition of claimant was likely to improve and re-assessment was recommended after a period of one year for evaluation of paraesthesia. Despite these two disability certificates being on record, no compensation was awarded by the ld. Tribunal under the head of 'loss of future income' for the reason that the condition was likely to improve and appellant/ claimant did not get her condition re-assessed regarding the aforementioned disability. However, this view does not find favour with this Court in view of the discussion in the following sub-paras. 11.1 Disability certificate (Ex PY) dated 27.10.2005, shows disability to the extent of 8% in relation to her limbs and further reassessment was recommended after a period of three months/years. This accident took place on 06.11.2002, so apparently this disability certificate is approximately after 3 years of accident. 11.1 Disability certificate (Ex PY) dated 27.10.2005, shows disability to the extent of 8% in relation to her limbs and further reassessment was recommended after a period of three months/years. This accident took place on 06.11.2002, so apparently this disability certificate is approximately after 3 years of accident. As per note, reassessment was recommended after 3 months/years, and even if we take this duration as 3 months, 'loss of future income' approximately till 27.01.2006, on account of "functional disability" suffered is required to be compensated. 11.2 Disability certificate (Ex P2) dated 26.08.2004, shows disability of 20% due to impairment in relation to her face (both esthetic and functional) and further reassessment was recommended after a period of 1 year. As discussed above, 'loss of future income' approximately till 26.08.2005, on account of "functional disability" suffered on this account is required to be compensated. 11.3 A joint perusal of the above two sub-paras shows that appellant/ claimant suffered due to above mentioned disabilities largely till the end of 2005, i.e. approximately for 3 years. Now this Court is required to determine the "functional disability" suffered by the appellant/ claimant. She had 8% impairment in relation to her limbs and 20% impairment in relation to her face (both esthetic and functional). While impairment in limbs would have affected her agility to perform her daily work, impairment in relation to her face can also significantly impact an individual running an advertising agency. The face is a crucial element of personal branding and client interactions in such a visually-driven and client-centric industry. Aesthetic changes might affect a person's confidence and the perception of others, potentially influencing client relationships and business negotiations. Additionally, running a business is distinctive from a service. In service, after returning to the work, a person starts earning the same amount of money, while in a business, returning to normalcy, after a long break would not ensure the same amount of income and earning back the trust of the clients and resuming the operations to the fuller extent would be comparatively more time consuming. Therefore, functional disability is assessed @25%, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11.4 Thus, compensation under the head of 'loss of future income' for 3 years comes to Rs. 1,08,000 (Rs. 12,000 X 12 X 3 X 25/100). Assessment under ' non-pecuniary headings 12. Therefore, functional disability is assessed @25%, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11.4 Thus, compensation under the head of 'loss of future income' for 3 years comes to Rs. 1,08,000 (Rs. 12,000 X 12 X 3 X 25/100). Assessment under ' non-pecuniary headings 12. In this accident, appellant/claimant suffered serious injuries i.e. fracture of her left arm, fracture of lower mandible, fracture on three fingers and other multiple injuries and she remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh from 07.11.2002 to 19.11.2002. She was operated upon twice and plastic surgery was also done on her fingers and she had to visit PGI, Chandigarh number of times for her treatment. Even as on 26.08.2004, she had 20% impairment in relation to her face (both esthetic and functional). In that circumstance, compensation awarded as Rs. 10,000/- for 'pain and suffering' is a meager amount and she is entitled for just and fair compensation on this account as well. Therefore, she is awarded Rs. 50,000/- on account of 'pain and suffering' and Rs. 50,000/- for 'loss of amenities and enjoyment of life'. 13. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of following compensation:- Sr. No. Nature Amount in Rupees 1. Loss of Income Rs. 48,000/- 5. Loss of future earning capacity/ income [25% (percentage disability) of total income for 3 years] Rs. 1,08,000/- 6. Medical Expenses/Hospitalization (as awarded by ld. Tribunal) Rs. 20,000/- 7. Pain & Suffering Rs. 50,000/- 8. Attendant charges, Transportation and Special Diet Rs. 50,000/- 9. Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life Rs. 50,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 3,26,000/- Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 35,000/- Enhanced Amount Rs. 2,91,000/- 14. The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not just in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case; rather as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claims shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claims shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. Conclusion 15. Present appeal bearing case no FAO-331-2008 is partly allowed and appellant/claimant is held entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 2,91,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Cross objections bearing No XOBJ No. 192-CII-2015 filed on behalf of respondent No.1- owner of the offending vehicle, are also allowed and the award passed by the ld. Tribunal to the extent of granting recovery rights to the respondent No 2 - Insurance Company is set aside. 16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.