JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Appellant­Kuldeep Singh, has preferred the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended up to date, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated 28.1.2013, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in MAC Case No.77 of 2011, titled as Kuldeep Singh versus Sudarshan Kumar & Another. 2. By way of award dated 28.1.2013, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioner, by awarding a sum of Rs.92,000/­, as compensation, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the amount is deposited with the learned Tribunal, against the respondents. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon respondent No.2­Insurance­Company. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Tribunal. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:­ 4.1. Petitioner Kuldeep Singh, has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in road side accident involving vehicle No.HP01­D­0715, (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), being owned and driven by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. 4.2. The petitioner has sought the relief on the ground that he is resident of Village Chattara and is working in the shop, known as ‘Manohar Di Hatti’. On 8.10.2009, he was going to his village, along with his employer Mahavir Bedi, on motorcycle, HP20­B­5152. 4.3. The offending vehicle was descending Una Nangal Highway, near Rakkar Colony Una. The offending vehicle overtook a motorcyclist and the petitioner was behind the offending vehicle. Meanwhile, a car bearing registration No.CH03­D­1694, driven by one Vinod Kumar came from Rakkar Colony. At the relevant time, respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner and he could not stop the offending vehicle. Consequently, the offending vehicle and the said Maruti Car collided. 4.4. Since, the motorcycle of the employer of the petitioner was behind the offending vehicle, as such, they struck against the offending vehicle and sustained injuries. Consequently, the offending vehicle and the said Maruti Car collided. 4.4. Since, the motorcycle of the employer of the petitioner was behind the offending vehicle, as such, they struck against the offending vehicle and sustained injuries. Damages were also caused to the motorcycle, driven by the employer of the petitioner. After the accident, petitioner was taken to District Hospital Una, from where, he, as well as, his employer were referred to DMC Ludhiana, where, they remained under treatment for more than one year. 4.5. The petitioner has pleaded his age, at the relevant time, as 25 years and according to him, he was employee at the ‘Manohar Di Hatti’ Cloth Merchant Una. It is his further case that at the relevant time, he was earning Rs.8,000/­ per month. 4.6. The information with regard to the accident was given to the Police, where, FIR No.367, dated 9.10.2009, was registered under Sections 279, 337, 304­A IPC, with Police Station Sadar, Una. 5. On the basis of the above facts, he has sought the relief, as claimed in the claim petition. 6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 7. Respondent No.1 has filed the reply, wherein, factum of accident has not been disputed. However, according to him the accident, in question, had taken place due to the fault of the injured himself. 7.1. Elaborating the stand, it is the case of respondent No.1 that the driver of motorcycle, Mahavir Bedi, could not stop his motorcycle, despite the red light signal, as such, respondent No.1, has pleaded that he be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. Rest of the contents of he claim petition have been denied. 7.2. The factum of registration of the FIR, as pleaded in para 9 of the petition, has been admitted, but, the said case has been termed to be a false case. 8. Rest of the contents of he claim petition have been denied. 7.2. The factum of registration of the FIR, as pleaded in para 9 of the petition, has been admitted, but, the said case has been termed to be a false case. 8. Insurance Company has filed its separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections that respondent No.1, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident; the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and the provisions of M.V. Act; the claim petition was filed in collusion with respondent No.1; petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner himself is a tort­feaser; the driver of motorcycle No.HP20­B­5152 was not holding the valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle; and the petition is stated to be bad for non­joinder of necessary parties, as the owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing registration No.HP20­5152, as well as, Maruti Car bearing registration No.CH03D­1694, have not been impleaded as party. 9. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. 10. Petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the replies filed by the respondents by denying the preliminary objections, as well as, the factual position, by virtue of which, the claim petition has been contested and controverted by the respondents. 11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 10.05.2012:­ 1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving vehicle No. HP­01­D­0715? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1­driver of vehicle No. HP­01­D­0715 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR2. 4. Whether vehicle No. HP­01­D­0715 was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and Motor Vehicles Act? OPR2 5. Whether vehicle No.HP­01­D­0715 was being plied without valid route permit, registration certificate and fitness certificate as alleged? OPR2. 6. Whether claim petition has been filed by petitioner in collusion with respondent No.1? OPR2 7. Whether driver of the motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive motorcycle No. HP­20­B­ 5152 at the time of accident on which petitioner was pillion rider? OPR2. 6. Whether claim petition has been filed by petitioner in collusion with respondent No.1? OPR2 7. Whether driver of the motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive motorcycle No. HP­20­B­ 5152 at the time of accident on which petitioner was pillion rider? OPR2 8. Whether petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties i.e. insured and insurer of motorcycle No. HP­20­B­5152? OPR2 9. Relief. 12. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 13. After the closure of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the petition, vide award impugned herein. 14. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, petitioner has preferred the present appeal, before this Court, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken his monthly income as Rs.4,000/­. According to the petitioner, even, an unskilled labourer is earning Rs.6,000/­ per month, as salary. 15. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that the petitioner was working as salesman in the shop of Mahavir Bedi and was getting Rs.8,000/­ per month as salary, as such, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a meagre sum of Rs.12,000/­, on account of loss of earnings. 16. Similarly, the amount, which has been awarded by learned Tribunal, on account of pain and sufferings, is also stated to be on the lower side, as, it has been proved that the petitioner remained bed ridden for about one year. The amount, which has been awarded, on account of attendant charges, is also stated to be on the lower side. 17. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability, but, the Disability Certificate was not issued as the implants are to be removed first, as such the learned Tribunal ought to have given some amount for loss of future income. According to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal has further erred in awarding interest @ 8%, which is on the lower side and the same ought to have been 9%. 18. The proceedings, under the M.V. Act, are summary in nature, where, the liability of the tort­feaser is to be fixed on the basis of the preponderance of the probability. 19. According to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal has further erred in awarding interest @ 8%, which is on the lower side and the same ought to have been 9%. 18. The proceedings, under the M.V. Act, are summary in nature, where, the liability of the tort­feaser is to be fixed on the basis of the preponderance of the probability. 19. In this case, the controversy is confined to the fact as to whether the amount, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’, as, the endeavour of the Court should be to provide “just compensation”. 20. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir and another, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 987, wherein it has been held that the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court should be to provide “just compensation” to the petitioner. The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the judgment are reproduced as under:­ “23. Both, the 1923 Act and 1988 Act are beneficent legislation insofar as they provide for payment of compensation to the workmen employed by the employers and/or by use of motor vehicle by the owner thereof and/or the insurer to the petitioners suffering permanent disability. The amount of compensation is to be determined in terms of the provisions of the respective Acts. Whereas in terms of the 1923 Act, the Commissioner who is a quasi judicial authority, is bound to apply the principles and the factors laid down in the Act for the purpose of determining the compensation, Section 168 of the 1988 Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. 24. Both the Acts aim at providing for expeditious relief to the victims of accident. In these cases, the accidents took place by reason of use of motor vehicles. Both the statutes are beneficial ones for the workmen as also the third parties. The benefits thereof are available only to the persons specified under the Act besides under the Contract of Insurance. The statutes, therefore, deserve liberal construction. The legislative intent contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto.” (self emphasis supplied) 21. Both the statutes are beneficial ones for the workmen as also the third parties. The benefits thereof are available only to the persons specified under the Act besides under the Contract of Insurance. The statutes, therefore, deserve liberal construction. The legislative intent contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto.” (self emphasis supplied) 21. In order to determine the question, whether the just compensation has been awarded or not, this Court has to discuss the evidence adduced by the petitioner to claim compensation, in this case. 22. Since, the award has been called, in question, only by the petitioner, on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of compensation, as such, other factual position, involved in the present case, is not required to be discussed. 23. Petitioner, in this case, has examined PW­2 Dr. Yogeshwar Ram Rabi, Medical Officer, PHC Tarsooh, District Bilaspur, who has examined petitioner Kuldeep, who was brought with alleged history of roadside accident and issued MLC Ex.PW­2/A. He has specifically stated that the injuries, as mentioned in MLC Ex.PW­2/A, could be caused in a roadside accident. 24. PW­3 Dr. Navdeep Malhotra, Senior Resident Ortho, DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, deposed that the petitioner was admitted in DMC Ludhiana on 9.10.2009 vide CR No.2009­116­721 at around 4.15 AM. After examination of patient, he was diagnosed as a case of close fracture tibia plateau with posterior subluxation of knee right side. He was operated for the same on 9.10.2009. He was discharged on 20.10.2009 in stable condition and advised regular follow­up in OPD. He has explained the nature of injuries, as under:­ 1. Abrasions present over proximal 3rd region right leg. 2. Abnormal mobility/tenderness/crepitus on 3rd region right leg. 25. On the basis of the record, he has deposed that the petitioner was operated for his fracture and fixation of fracture tibia was done with 5 hole narrow T­buttress plate. The implant was required to be removed after 2 years, once the fracture would consolidate. According to him, for removal of the implant, around Rs.20,000/­ was further required. He has proved the cash memos/bills as Ext.P­1 to P­33. 26. In the cross­examination, this witness has admitted that with passage of time and proper treatment, the injury would heal. According to him, the implant could be removed even in a Government hospital. 27. Petitioner himself appeared in the witness­box as PW­4. He has proved the cash memos/bills as Ext.P­1 to P­33. 26. In the cross­examination, this witness has admitted that with passage of time and proper treatment, the injury would heal. According to him, the implant could be removed even in a Government hospital. 27. Petitioner himself appeared in the witness­box as PW­4. Apart from deposing about the factual position as to how the accident had taken place, he has deposed that after the accident, firstly, he was taken to District Hospital, Una, from where, he was referred to DMC Ludhiana, where, he remained under treatment for one year. Apart from this, he has also deposed that at the relevant time, his monthly income was Rs.8,000/­. He has also deposed that due to this accident, he remained bed­ridden for about one year, due to which, he could not earn anything. 28. In the cross­examination, this witness has admitted that he was working in the shop of Mahavir Bedi, for the last 8­9 years. He has also deposed that at the relevant time, except him, four other persons were working in the shop. He has admitted that after the accident, he is working in the shop of Mahavir, but, voluntarily stated that he could not work like earlier. 29. In the cross­examination by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this witness has admitted that presently, he is working in the shop of Mahavir Bedi and also getting Rs.8,000/­, as salary. He has admitted that he does not know whether any record pertaining to his salary, has been maintained by his employer or not. 30. On the basis of the above evidence, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.92,000/­ to the petitioner. 31. Keeping in view the evidence, so adduced by the petitioner, the amount of compensation, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, to the considered opinion of this Court, is on the lower side and the same does not fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’. 32. Moreover, it is no longer res integra that while awarding the compensation, the same is required to be determined under the various heads, on the basis of the evidence so adduced, so that the higher Court would be in a position to assess, whether the just compensation has been awarded or not. Hence, the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation under various heads is adjudicated, by this Court, as under:­ 1. Hence, the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation under various heads is adjudicated, by this Court, as under:­ 1. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) PAIN AND SUFFERING: 33. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/­, under this head. However, no reasoning has been given by the learned Tribunal, as to how this amount has been assessed. The accident, in question, had taken place on 08.10.2009 and after the accident, the petitioner was firstly taken to Government Hospital, Una, from where, he was taken to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana on 9.10.2009 and remained admit there till 20.10.2009. Meaning thereby, the period of hospitalization comes to twelve days. Those twelve days must be traumatic and painful for the petitioner, for which, he is atleast entitled to for a sum of Rs.2000/­x12=Rs.24,000/­. (b) LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE: 34. The period of hospitalization is held to be twelve days. The doctor has mentioned the following injuries on the person of the petitioner:­ 1. Abrasions present over proximal 3 rd region right leg. 2. Abnormal mobility/ tenderness/crepitus on 3rd region right leg. 35. The petitioner was operated for his fracture and fixation of fracture tibia was done with 5 hole T­buttress plate. The petitioner, after discharge from the hospital, might had confined to bed for atleast one year for convalescence. 36. Considering the nature of injuries, as well as, the period of hospitalization, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/­ under this head, as during the said period, he could not enjoy the life of a normal human being. (c) SHORTEN EXPECTANCY OF LIFE: 37. There is no evidence on the record to prove or to suggest that on account of injuries suffered by the petitioner, his life span would have been shortened. 2. PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) MEDICAL EXPENSES: 38. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.52,000/­, as compensation, under this head. Bills have been proved on record as Ex.P­1 to Ex.P­33. After perusing the bills, as well as, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal Court, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error, while awarding a sum of Rs.52,000/­, under this head, to the petitioner. Thus, the amount, under this head, is not required to be enhanced. (b) LOSS OF EARNINGS/EARNING CAPACITY: 39. After perusing the bills, as well as, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal Court, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error, while awarding a sum of Rs.52,000/­, under this head, to the petitioner. Thus, the amount, under this head, is not required to be enhanced. (b) LOSS OF EARNINGS/EARNING CAPACITY: 39. The period of hospitalization has been held to be twelve days and the period of convalescence has been held to be one year. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/­, under this head, by holding his income as Rs.4,000/­ per month. However, the learned Tribunal, without any reason, has reduced the compensation for loss of earnings, as Rs.12,000/­, whereas, his period of convalescence and hospitalization has been held to be one year. Taking the income of the petitioner as Rs.4,000/­, he is liable to get Rs.48,000/­. Deduction has been made without any reason. Hence, those findings do not sustain. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.48,000/­ as compensation, under this head. 40. There is no evidence on record that due to the injuries, the earning capacity of the petitioner has been diminished as such, no amount of compensation is required to be given. (c) TRAVELLING EXPENSES: 41. The accident, in question, had taken place on 8.10.2009 and after the accident, the petitioner was firstly taken to Government Hospital, Una, from where, he was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, where he remained hospitalized for twelve days. Thereafter, he has visited the said Hospital for follow­ups. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/­, under this head. (d) SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES: 42. During the period of hospitalization, as well as, convalescence, the petitioner might have taken a special diet and also required the services of an attendant, as such, some amount is liable to be awarded to him. Considering all these facts, a sum of Rs.365x200=Rs.73,000/­ would be just and appropriate compensation under this head. 43. Considering all these facts, the petitioner is held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,67,000/­ (Rs.24,000/­+ Rs.50,000/­+ Rs.52,000/­+ Rs.48,000/­+ Rs.20,000/­+ Rs.73,000/­), along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, from respondent No.2. 44. 43. Considering all these facts, the petitioner is held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,67,000/­ (Rs.24,000/­+ Rs.50,000/­+ Rs.52,000/­+ Rs.48,000/­+ Rs.20,000/­+ Rs.73,000/­), along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, from respondent No.2. 44. With these observations, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the award passed by the learned Tribunal and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.92,000/­ to Rs.2,67,000/­, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole amount, with upto date interest. The liability to pay the amount of compensation, along with interest, is upon respondent No.2, being insurer of the offending vehicle. 45. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs. 46. Memo of costs be prepared. 47. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back.