JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Appellant­Mahavir Bedi, 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.76 of 2011, titled as Mahavir Bedi 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.87,000/­, 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 on 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 Mahavir Bedi, 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 on 8.10.2009, he was on the way to Sunshine Hotel, Chhattara to attend a marriage, along with his servant Kuldeep Singh, on his motorcycle, HP20­B­5152. Near Rakkar Colony Una, the offending vehicle was descending Una Nangal Highway. 4.3. 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 petitioner and his pillion rider were 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 petitioner. Consequently, the offending vehicle and the said Maruti Car collided. 4.4. Since, the petitioner and his pillion rider were 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 petitioner. After the accident, petitioner was taken to District Hospital Una, from where, he, as well as, the pillion rider were referred to DMC Ludhiana, where, they remained under treatment for more than one year. The petitioner has pleaded his age, at the relevant time, as 28 years and according to him, he was working as Manager at the Manohar Di Hatti Cloth Merchant Una. It is his further case that at the relevant time, he was earning Rs.30,000/­ per month. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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, however, it has been pleaded that the accident, in question, had taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner himself. 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. 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 petitioner was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive motorcycle No. HP­20­B­ 5152 at the time of accident? 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.6,000/­. According to the petitioner, it cannot be imagined that a person, who was earning Rs.6,000/­, was paying Rs.4,000/­ as salary to his servant, as the income of Shri Kuldeep Singh has been taken by the learned Tribunal as Rs.4,000/­. 15. Similarly, the amount, which has been awarded by learned Tribunal, on account of loss of earning, is also stated to be on the lower side, as, it has been proved that the petitioner remained bed ridden for about 6 months. Similarly, the amount, which has been awarded, on account of future medical expenses, is also stated to be on the lower side. 16. Along with the petition, the petitioner has moved an application, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, with a prayer to permit him to place on record, a copy of Income Tax Return pertaining to the year 2009­10 and the bill issued by Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, as well as, the medical bills for removal of implant. These documents are sought to be produced on the ground that inadvertently, the copy of Income Tax Return, although, was supplied to the learned counsel representing him, but, the same could not be placed on record and this fact came to the notice of the petitioner, when, he received the certified copy of the award. 17. These documents are sought to be produced on the ground that inadvertently, the copy of Income Tax Return, although, was supplied to the learned counsel representing him, but, the same could not be placed on record and this fact came to the notice of the petitioner, when, he received the certified copy of the award. 17. Apart from this, the other documents, which had been sought to be produced, are stated to be relevant for the just adjudication of the case, as those documents are the bills of expenses, which were incurred by him for removing the implant, after the date of the decision of the claim petition. 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 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. 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. 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 impugned 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 Ravi, Medical Officer, PHC Tarsooh, District Bilaspur, who has examined petitioner Mahavir Bedi, who was brought with alleged history of roadside accident and issued MLC Ex.PW­2/A. X­ray was also advised. He has specifically stated that the injuries, as mentioned in MLC Ex.PW­2/A, could be caused in 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.2009­116­720 at around 4.15 AM. After examination of patient, he was diagnosed as a case of compound grade­II fracture tibia mid third region right side with fracture fibula right. He was operated for the same on 9.10.2009. He was discharged on 14.10.2009 in stable condition and advised regular follow­up in OPD. He has explained the nature of injuries, as under:­ 1. Compound wound of 2x1 cm over anterior aspect of 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 the fracture of tibia and fixation of fracture was done with 7 hole narrow dynamic compression plate. The implant requires to be removed after 2 years, once the fracture has consolidated. According to him, for removal of the implant, around Rs.20,000/­ is further required. He has proved the cash memos/bills as Ext.P­1 to P­19, as well as, OPD slip Ext.P20. 26. The implant requires to be removed after 2 years, once the fracture has consolidated. According to him, for removal of the implant, around Rs.20,000/­ is further required. He has proved the cash memos/bills as Ext.P­1 to P­19, as well as, OPD slip Ext.P20. 26. In the cross­examination, this witness has admitted that with passage of time and proper treatment, the injury will heal. The implant can 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.30,000/­. He has also deposed that due to this accident, he remained bed­ridden for about 6 months and his business was closed. 28. In the cross­examination, this witness has deposed that at the relevant time, three persons were working with him and presently, six persons are working with him. He has admitted that after the accident, his shop was opened, but, voluntarily stated that he has suffered loss in the business. 29. In the cross­examination by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this witness has admitted that he is income tax payee and also used to pay sales tax. He has admitted that no document pertaining to the income tax and sales tax has been placed on record. 30. On the basis of the above evidence, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.87,000/­ 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 14.10.2009. Meaning thereby, the period of hospitalization comes to six days. Those six days must be traumatic and painful for the petitioner, for which, he is atleast entitled to for a sum of Rs.2000x6=Rs.12,000/­. (b) LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE: 34. The period of hospitalization is held to be six days. The doctor has mentioned the following injuries on the person of the petitioner:­ 1. Compound wound of 2x1 cm over anterior aspect of right leg. 2. Abnormal mobility/ tenderness/crepitus on 3rd region right leg. 35. The petitioner was operated for the fracture of tibia and fixation of fracture was done with 7 hole narrow dynamic compression plate. The petitioner, after discharge from the hospital, might had confined to bed for atleast six months for convalescence. 36. Considering the nature of injuries, as well as, the period of hospitalization, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to award compensation under this head also, to the petitioner. 37. Accordingly, the petitioner is held 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: 38. 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: 39. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.41,000/­, as compensation, under this head. 40. By way of application, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the petitioner has also placed on record the medical bills. 2. PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) MEDICAL EXPENSES: 39. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.41,000/­, as compensation, under this head. 40. By way of application, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the petitioner has also placed on record the medical bills. Since, the strict provisions of CPC are not applicable in the proceedings under M.V. Act, as such, the application is considered and allowed by taking the bills produced by the petitioner along with application, as every endeavour of this Court is to assess the ‘just compensation’ for which the petitioner is entitled to. Moreover, these proceedings are summary in nature. The total of the bills, annexed with the application, comes to Rs.32,751/­. Bills have been proved on record as Ex.P­1 to Ex.P­19, the total of which comes to Rs.45,343/­. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.78,094/­ (Rs.32751+Rs.45,343/­), as compensation, under this head. (b) LOSS OF EARNINGS/EARNING CAPACITY: 41. The period of hospitalization has been held to be six days and the period of convalescence has been held to be six months. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/­, under this head, by holding his income as Rs.6,000/­ per month. However, the learned Tribunal, without any reason, has reduced the compensation for loss of earnings, as Rs.18,000/­ per month, whereas, his period of convalescence and hospitalization has been held to be six months. Even taking the said income as income of the petitioner, he is entitled to Rs.36,000/­. Deduction has been made without any reason. Hence, those findings do not sustain. 42. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the Income Tax Return for the assessment years 2009­10, in which, his gross total income is shown to be Rs.2,33,467/­. On the basis of this document, which, has been placed on record, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the monthly income of the petitioner is held to be not less than Rs.15,000/­, as such, for a period of six months, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.15,000/­x6=Rs.90,000/­, as compensation, under this head. 42. 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: 44. 42. 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: 44. 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 six days. Thereafter, he has visited the said Hospital for follow­up. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/­, under this head. (d) SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES:­ 45. 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.180x200=Rs.36,000/­ would be just and appropriate compensation under this head. 46. Considering all these facts, the petitioner is held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,86,094/­ (Rs.12,000/­+ Rs.50,000/­+ Rs.78,094/­+ Rs.90,000/­+ Rs.20,000/­+ Rs.36,000/­), along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, from respondent No.2. 47. 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.87,000/­ to Rs.2,86,094/­, 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. 48. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs. 49. Memo of costs be prepared. 50. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back.