JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Claimant­Kamaljeet has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), with a prayer to modify the enhance the award dated 01.04.2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in MAC Case No. 3/2 of 2014, titled as “Kamaljeet Versus Parveen and others”. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned MACT. 3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:­ 3.1. Claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against the respondents, being owner, driver and insurer of vehicle No. HP01H­1444. The claimant has filed the petition due to the fact that on 25.05.2013, he was pillion rider on scooter No. HP22A­5632, which was being driven by Rakesh Kumar. They were on their way from Hamirpur to Nadoun and when reached near DAV School Salashi, at about 7:50 pm, then respondent No. 2 came there while driving vehicle No. HP01H­1444 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter driven by Rakesh Kumar. Consequently, the claimant sustained multiple injuries, as well as, also suffered compound fractures on his right leg. The information regarding the accident was given to Police Station Sadar, where case has been registered against respondent No. 2. After the accident, the claimant was taken to hospital at Hamirpur, from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where, he remained admit as indoor patient. 3.2 According to the claimant, he has suffered disability in this accident. Since, the accident has taken place due to sole rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, as such, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. One crore, to the claimant. 4. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 4.1 Respondent No. 1 has filed his reply by taking the preliminary objection that the learned MACT has no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter, as the accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of MACT Hamirpur. One crore, to the claimant. 4. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 4.1 Respondent No. 1 has filed his reply by taking the preliminary objection that the learned MACT has no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter, as the accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of MACT Hamirpur. 4.2 On merits, the contents of the claim petition qua the accident has not been disputed. Rest of the contents have been denied. However, he has denied that respondent No. 2 was rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle. 4.3 In his reply, respondent No. 2 has denied the fact of accident. Rest of the contents have been denied for want of knowledge. 4.4 Insurance company­respondent No. 3, has filed the separate reply by taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable, vehicle was being permitted to drive in violation to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence, the petition is bad for non­joinder and mis­joinder of necessary parties, as driver, owner and insurer of scooter bearing No. HP22A­5632 have not been impleaded. 4.5 On merits, contents of the claim petition have been denied, mainly, for want of knowledge. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal, had framed the following issues, vide order dated 24.02.2015:­ 1. Whether on 25.05.2013 at about 7:50 pm near DAV School Salashi, petitioner sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, driver of car No. HP01H­1444? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 above is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR­3 4. Whether the petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties? OPR­3 5. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven without any valid documents? OPR­3 6. Whether respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving licence? OPR­3 7. Relief. 6. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to lead evidence. 7. After the closure of the evidence, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the petition, by awarding a sum of Rs. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven without any valid documents? OPR­3 6. Whether respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving licence? OPR­3 7. Relief. 6. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to lead evidence. 7. After the closure of the evidence, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the petition, by awarding a sum of Rs. 13,23,000/­, along with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till payment, to the claimant by fastening the liability upon respondent No. 3, being insurer of vehicle No. HP01H­1444. 8. Aggrieved from the amount of compensation, awarded to the claimant, he has preferred the present appeal before this Court, seeking the enhancement of amount of compensation. The award has been sought to be enhanced mainly on the ground that the learned MACT has wrongly concluded that the petitioner was not earning the amount of Rs. 30,000/­ per month and his income has been wrongly taken as Rs. 6,000/­ per month, whereas, according to the claimant, he has proved the fact on the record that he was skilled worker and working as a painter and earning Rs. 13,000/­ per month. The learned MACT had rightly concluded that the claimant had suffered 40% physical disability, but on account of said disability, the functioning disability should have been 100%, in the present case. 9. On the basis of the above facts, Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocate appearing for the claimant has prayed that the award amount may kindly be enhanced, on the basis of submissions made above. 10. The prayer, so made, by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant has been opposed by Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for respondent No. 1, as well as, Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate, vice Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 and Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3, on the ground that the evidence so adduced has rightly been considered by learned MACT and the learned MACT has rightly passed the award and the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 11. Primary purpose of the Court is to grant just compensation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Mohd. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3, on the ground that the evidence so adduced has rightly been considered by learned MACT and the learned MACT has rightly passed the award and the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 11. Primary purpose of the Court is to grant just compensation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Mohd. Nasir and another , (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 987 , has 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 claimants. 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 pay­ ment 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 de­ termining 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 benfits 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) 12. Being guided by the above decision, now, this Court would proceed further that whether the learned MACT has awarded ‘just compensation’ or not. In order to ascertain the said fact, it would be just and appropriate to discuss the evidence, so adduced by the claimant, before the learned MACT. 13. Being guided by the above decision, now, this Court would proceed further that whether the learned MACT has awarded ‘just compensation’ or not. In order to ascertain the said fact, it would be just and appropriate to discuss the evidence, so adduced by the claimant, before the learned MACT. 13. Claimant Kamaljeet has taken the stand that the accident had taken place on 25.05.2013 at 7:50 pm and he was taken to Civil Hospital Hamirpur, where he remained till 10:00 pm and thereafter, taken to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admit as indoor patient till 28.05.2013 and on 10.10.2013, he was again admitted at PGI Chandigarh and remained admit till 25.10.2013. Operation was also conducted and as such, according to him, he was forced to spent Rs. 10,00,000/­ on his treatment, including taxi charges and medicines etc. 14. In order to prove the said fact, the claimant has examined PW­2, Babu Ram Majhol, who is a registered contractor and executing the work awarded to him by PWD and I&PH Departments. Kamaljeet was working as painter­ cum­supervisor with him. On 01.01.2010, an agreement had been executed between Kamaljeet and this witness, with regard to his work with him as painter­cum­supervisor. This witness has proved the same as Ext. PW2/A. He used to pay Rs. 12,000/­ per month to Kamaljeet and in the year 2013, he had started paying a sum of Rs. 13,000/­ per month. In this regard, he has issued the certificate Ext. PW2/B. According to this witness, after the accident, which had taken place on 25.05.2013, Kamaljeet had not attended his duties. 14.1 In the cross­examination, this witness has deposed that he is working as contractor from the year 1979 and has proved the licence, which is valid upto 31.03.2016. 15. PW­4 Vinod Kumar deposed that his services were hired by the claimant from 28.05.2013 to October, 2013 and claimant used to pay him Rs. 4000/­ per month. 16. Claimant Kamaljeet, when appeared in the witness box, as PW­6, has deposed that after the accident, he was taken to District Hospital, Hamirpur, from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He remained admit at PGI Chandigarh from 25.05.2013 till 28.05.2013. He was operated there and rod was inserted. On 28th May, 2013, he was sent back to Bilaspur and thereafter, he had visited PGI Chandigarh for follow up treatment. He remained admit at PGI Chandigarh from 25.05.2013 till 28.05.2013. He was operated there and rod was inserted. On 28th May, 2013, he was sent back to Bilaspur and thereafter, he had visited PGI Chandigarh for follow up treatment. In the month of October, 2013, again operation was conducted and due to the said injury, his right leg became two inches shorter and he could not bend the same. He has further deposed that he remained confine to bed from 25.05.2013 and now, he is walking with the help of crutches. In order to visit Chandigarh, he had hired the car of one Gulshan. The Doctor at PGI issued the Disability Certificate, according to which, he has sustained 40% disability, permanent in nature. 17. PW­7, Dr. Rama Kisan, Senior Resident, Department of Orthopedic, PGI Chandigarh, deposed that he was authorized by Dr. R.K. Kanojia and Dr. Aditya Aggarwal, to depose vide authorization letter Ext. PW7/A and Ext. PW7/B, as both the Doctors are in OPD duty. This Doctor was member of the surgical team, which had conducted surgery on the person of the claimant. He has explained the fracture as right fracture of digital femur. Artificial fixture were inserted. The claimant was discharged on 28.05.2013 and again operated on 12.10.2013, as fracture had not healed. He has also proved the Disability Certificate Ext. PW7/C, by deposing that the Board found 40% disability, permanent in nature. 18. In this background, now, this Court would proceed further to determine the amount of compensation, for which, the claimant is entitled to, in the present case. 19. The learned MACT, in the present case, has although granted the compensation under various heads, but, the evidence, which had been led by the parties has not been discussed. As such, entitlement of the claimant under various heads is liable to be re­fixed by this Court, on the basis of the evidence, so adduced. Consequently, entitlement of the claimant is assessed, as under:­ 1. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: 20. The accident in question had taken place on 25.05.2013 and thereafter, the claimant was taken to District Hospital Hamirpur, from where, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admit up to 27.05.2013 and discharged on 28.05.2013. Thus, the total period for which the claimant remained admit, comes to four days. Thereafter, he was again operated upon, on 12.10.2013. The accident in question had taken place on 25.05.2013 and thereafter, the claimant was taken to District Hospital Hamirpur, from where, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admit up to 27.05.2013 and discharged on 28.05.2013. Thus, the total period for which the claimant remained admit, comes to four days. Thereafter, he was again operated upon, on 12.10.2013. The Medical Board has found disability as 40% permanent in nature. 21. Considering the above facts, the period of hospitalization, as well as, the intervening period between first surgery and the second surgery must be traumatic and painful for the claimant, for which he is held entitled for a sum of Rs. 30 x 5 x 1000 = Rs. 1,50,000/­, under this head. (b) LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE: 22. Considering the period of hospitalization, the time between the first surgery and second surgery, as well as, the time taken for convalescence, this Court is of the view that, for about one year, the claimant could not enjoy the life of a normal human being. As such, claimant is held entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/­, under this head, for which, the learned MACT, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/­. (c) SHORTEN EXPECTANCY OF LIFE: 23. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that on account of the injuries sustained/suffered by the claimant, his life span has been shortened. As such, no amount of compensation is being awarded, under this head. 2. PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) LOSS OF EARNING AND EARNING CAPACITY: 24. The claimant has pleaded that he was working as contractor and painter and was earning Rs. 30,000/­ per month. However, the claimant himself has examined PW­2 Babu Ram Majhol, who is registered contractor and according to him, Kamaljeet was employed by him on 01.01.2010, as painter­cum­supervisor, vide an agreement Ext. PW2/A and he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/­ per month to him. In the year 2013, his monthly income was Rs. 13,000/­ per month. In this regard, he issued certificate Ext. PW2/B. 25. Although, the said evidence is beyond pleadings, but, considering the nature of the proceedings under the M.V. Act, which are summary in nature, this Court is of the view that the pleadings of the claimant, qua the fact, that he was working as contractor and painter and self employed as contractor and earning Rs. PW2/B. 25. Although, the said evidence is beyond pleadings, but, considering the nature of the proceedings under the M.V. Act, which are summary in nature, this Court is of the view that the pleadings of the claimant, qua the fact, that he was working as contractor and painter and self employed as contractor and earning Rs. 30,000/­ per month, is not fatal for the case of the claimant. 26. The learned MACT in the present case has taken the monthly earning of the claimant as Rs. 6,000/­ and after adding 50% on account of his future prospects, his monthly income has been taken as Rs. 9,000/­. In such situation, the material question, which arises for determination before this Court about the variation between the pleadings and the evidence. Keeping in view the low legal literacy of Indian masses, at the worst, it can be said that the claimant, in the claim petition, has given an exaggerated version, with regard to his income as Rs. 30,000/­, and in order to justify the same, he had taken the plea that he was a contractor and painter. 27. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any document to prove that he was working as contractor, whereas by examining PW­2, he has probablized that he was working with Babu Ram, who is a registered contractor with I&PH and PWD Departments, who used to pay Rs. 13,000/­ per month to the claimant, at the relevant time. Not only this, he has proved the certificate Ext. PW2/A and Ext. PW2/B, which were issued on 30.06.2013. In the cross­ examination by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this witness has categorically stated that he is having the contractorship licence, which is valid up to 31.03.2016. When a person, who is proved to be a registered contractor with PWD and I&PH departments, has stated, on oath, with regard to the employment of the claimant as painter­cum­supervisor, then the learned MACT has fallen into error by holding that the monthly income of the claimant has been proved as Rs. 6,000/­ per month. 28. Moreover, it has not been suggested to the claimant that he was neither a painter nor contractor nor earning Rs. 30,000/­ per month. In such situation, whatsoever deposed by PW­2 and claimant PW­6, can be taken into consideration to determine the monthly income of the claimant, at the relevant time, as Rs. 13,000/­ per month. 6,000/­ per month. 28. Moreover, it has not been suggested to the claimant that he was neither a painter nor contractor nor earning Rs. 30,000/­ per month. In such situation, whatsoever deposed by PW­2 and claimant PW­6, can be taken into consideration to determine the monthly income of the claimant, at the relevant time, as Rs. 13,000/­ per month. The total period of hospitalization including the time between the first surgery and second surgery, as well as, the time taken for convalescence, comes to about 18 months and due to the injuries suffered by him, which resulted into 40% permanent disability, the claimant could not contribute anything to his family. As such, for the same, he is held entitled for a sum of Rs. 13,000/­ x 18 = Rs. 2,34,000/­. 29. The disability is about 40%. Keeping in view the nature of the job, the said disability can be taken as 40%, as, no evidence has been led, to demonstrate that the claimant cannot do any work. The doctor, who has proved the disability certificate, PW­7, has stated that the disability would remain there forever, but this does not mean that claimant cannot do any other work, except the work of painter/supervisor. 30. The monthly income of the claimant has been held to be Rs. 13,000/­ per month and 40% of the same comes to Rs. 5,200/­ per month. Age of the claimant has been proved to be 37 years and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another’ , reported as 2009 (6) SCC 121 , multiplier of ‘15’ is to be applied, in this case. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the amount on account of loss of earning capacity, which is assessed as Rs. 5200/­ x 12 x 15 = Rs. 9,36,000/­. (b) MEDICAL EXPENSES: 31. Learned MACT has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/­ to the claimant, on account of medical expenses, which have been rightly awarded to him and need no interference by this Court. (c) TRANSPORTATION CHARGES: 32. Learned MACT has awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/­ to the claimant, on account of transportation charges, which have been rightly awarded to him. (d) SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES: 33. 2,50,000/­ to the claimant, on account of medical expenses, which have been rightly awarded to him and need no interference by this Court. (c) TRANSPORTATION CHARGES: 32. Learned MACT has awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/­ to the claimant, on account of transportation charges, which have been rightly awarded to him. (d) SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES: 33. At the time of accident, the age of the claimant was 37 years and on account of the accident, he had sustained injuries and suffered disability. His period of hospitalization, as well as, convalescence has been held to be 18 months i.e. 547 days. During that period, the claimant might have taken special diet, for which, it would be just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 100/­ per day, under this head. Thus, the compensation, under the head ‘special diet’ comes to Rs. 547 x 100 = Rs. 54,700/­. 34. The claimant had also engaged services of attendant, during this period, for which, it would be just and appropriate to award Rs. 4000/­ per month, under the head ‘attendant charges’. Thus, the compensation, under this head, comes to Rs. 4000/­ x 18 = Rs. 72,000/­. 35. Considering all these facts, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/­ + Rs. 2,00,000/­ + Rs. 2,34,000/­ + Rs. 9,36,000/­ + Rs. 2,50,000/­ + Rs. 50,000/­ + Rs. 54,700/­ + Rs. 72,000/­ = Rs. 19,46,700/­, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from respondent No. 3. 36. With these observations, the appeal is allowed by modifying the award passed by the learned MACT and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 13,23,000/­ to Rs. 19,46,700/­, 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. 37. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs. 38. Memo of costs be prepared. 39. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back.