2026:HHC:15092 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MVA) No. 133 of 2014 Reserved on : 18.04.2026 Decided on : 30.04.2026 Dr. Renu Rattan ...Appellant Versus Savita Parashar and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Ms. Kritika, Advocate, vice Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: None for respondent No. 1. Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge. Appellant-Dr. Renu Rattan has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), being dissatisfied with the award dated 06.01.2014, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:15092 referred to as ‘the MACT’), in MAC Petition No. 56- S/2 of 2012/08, titled as “Dr. Renu Rattan Versus Smt. Savita Parashar & anr.”. 2. Vide award dated 06.01.2014, the learned MACT has allowed the petition, filed by the appellant and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/-, along with interest, at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till realization of the amount. The ultimate liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon respondent No. 2. 3. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant for enhancing the amount of compensation awarded to her. 4. 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. 5. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:- 3 2026:HHC:15092 5.1 Claimant Dr. Renu Rattan has filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the respondents, being the owner and insurer of vehicle No. HP67-7550. According to the claimant, she was travelling in bus No. HP67-7550 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by Sh. Kripal Singh and had suffered injuries in the accident, which, according to her, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by the driver, who himself had expired in the accident in question. 5.2 Respondent No. 1 has been impleaded, in the present case, being the legal heir of Sh. Rulia Ram, registered owner of the offending vehicle. 5.3 The claimant has pleaded her age as 38 years at the time of accident and she was pursuing her Post Graduation in Department of Dermatology, in IGMC Shimla and was earning Rs. 31,352/- per month. She was employed with Department of Health Services, Government of Himachal Pradesh. 5.4 It is her further case that the accident in question had taken place on 07.03.2007, at about 4 2026:HHC:15092 2:45 PM, near Village Sandoti, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotkehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P. In the said accident, the claimant sustained injuries and after the accident, she was taken to CHC Ghawandal, District Bilaspur. Thereafter, she was taken to PGI Chandigarh, IGMC Shimla and SSL Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Banaras. 5.5 Claimant has given the details of further treatment taken by her at various hospitals in the claim petition, which are reproduced as under:- (i) Immediately after the accident the claimant was removed to CHC Ghawandal, District Bilaspur from where she was referred to PGI Chandigarh on the same date i.e. 07.03.2007. (ii) On 07.03.2007, claimant was admitted in PGI Chandigarh as indoor patient with immediate treatment for traumatic injuries. (iii) On 08.03.2007, the claimant underwent debridement with external fixation of left lower leg under general anesthesia. (iv) On 12.03.2007, the claimant underwent anterior decompression with anterior plate fixation with bone grafting under general anesthesia. (v) On 29.03.2007, the Claimant underwent debridement of both fractured bones left leg, release of fascio coetaneous flap under spinal anesthesia. (vi) On 05.04.2007, the claimant underwent second stage delay of distally based lateral septo coetaneous perforator flap left leg with drill holes in exposed tibia lower end under spinal anesthesia. (vii) On 10.04.2007, the claimant underwent fascio coetaneous flap cover to exposed tibia with 5 2026:HHC:15092 super facial skin grafting under spinal anesthesia. (viii) The claimant was discharged from PGI Chandigarh on 17.04.2007, with advise to not to walk/stand till next instructions. (ix) The claimant was brought to Una in an Ambulance and was again taken to PGI Chandigarh for follow up on 20.04.2007, 02.05.2007 and 13.06.2007, every time in an ambulance. (x) The claimant was again taken to Chandigarh on 27.06.2007 and admitted as indoor patient on the same date. (xi) On 28.06.2007, the claimant underwent ETN (Expert Tibial Nail) surgery for fractured both bones left leg and had dorselis pad injury with equinus left foot as complications of this surgery. (xii) The claimant was discharged from PGI Chandigarh on 14.07.2007 and was taken to Una. The claimant attended PGI Chandigarh for follow up on 21.07.2007, 30.07.2007, 01.08.2007 and 12.09.2007. (xiii) On 22.09.2007, the claimant joined PHC Dehlan after having declared medically fit. (xiv) On 29.09.2007, the claimant was relieved from PHC Dehlan as she was to join her Post Graduation Course in Department of Dermatology on 03.10.2007. (xv) Since, the claimant on the date of joining her Post Graduation Course had been suffering from fever for past few days, she sought advice of Department of Orthopedic, IGMC Shimla. On being X-rayed, it was opined that the left leg of the claimant showed signs of non-union of the site of fracture. On removal of POP Cast puss collection was found at the wound site. Incision and drainage was done. (xvi) On 10.10.2007, the claimant was taken to PGI Chandigarh from Shimla, where the diagnose of non-union of fracture site was confirmed and the claimant was advised to take anti- biotic for the time being to control infection with nail (implant) removal later on and not to bear weight on the injured leg. 6 2026:HHC:15092 (xvii) On 08.11.2007, the claimant was again taken to PGI Chandigarh from Shimla and was admitted as an indoor patient. Nail removal and debridement was done and the claimant was discharged on 09.11.2007. (xviii) The claimant was further advised illizarovs fixation on bones of left leg which was planned to be got done at Banaras. The aforesaid procedure was planned to be conducted on 26.11.2007, but same could not be done due to development of neutropenia and anemia in the claimant. The blood parameters impoved with the blood transfusion given to the claimant. The blood parameters improved with the blood transfusion given to the claimant and accordingly after improvement of blood parameters illizarovs fixation was done on 10.12.2007. (xix) The claimant remained admit in SSL Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Banaras from 10.12.2007 to 14.12.2007 and prior to this, the claimant was admitted in the same hospital on 26.11.2007 and 03.11.2007. After her discharge from said hospital, the claimant went for follow up on 19.12.2007, 20.12.2007, 27.12.2007 and on 07.01.2008. Distraction was done daily from 19.12.2007 till 07.01.2008. (xx) On 18.01.2008, the claimant again visited Ortho OPD of the Hospital due to pin site infection. The claimant again visited the Hospital on 23.01.2008, 30.01.2008 and on 11.02.2008, when the gradual deloading of fixation was started. (xxi) On 06.03.2008, the claimant came to PGI Chandigarh from banaras and had Ortho consultations. (xxii) On 12.03.2008, claimant went to IGMC Shimla for removal of one pin from the fixator. The claimant is still under treatment and has not cured fully. 5.6 The information regarding the accident was given to Police Station Kotkehloor, where, FIR 7 2026:HHC:15092 bearing No. 30/2007, dated 07.03.2007, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC was registered. Since, the accident had solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle, who, had also expired in the said accident, as such, the claimant has sought compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs, from the respondents, in the present case. 6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 7. Respondent No. 1 has filed the reply by taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable, no cause of action accrued to the claimant and the amount of compensation, if any, is liable to be recovered from respondent No. 2, as the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No. 2. 7.1 On merits, the factum of accident has not been denied. Rest of the contents have been denied, mainly for want of knowledge. 8. Insurance company of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 2 has filed the separate reply taking preliminary objections that claim petition is vague, 8 2026:HHC:15092 misconceived and does not disclose any cause of action. The offending vehicle was not having a valid registration certificate, fitness certificate, as well as route permit, at the time of accident and was permitted to ply in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8.1 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied, mainly for want of knowledge. 9. Thus, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 10. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned MACT, had framed the following issues, vide order dated 04.07.2011:- 1. Whether on 07.03.2007 at about 2:45 PM near village Sandoti, the driver was driving bus No. HP67-7550 rashly and negligently and as such caused injuries to Renu Rattan? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of bus No. HP67-7550 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Whether the driver was driving the bus No. HP67-7550 without registration certificate, 9 2026:HHC:15092 fitness certificate and route permit in violation of the policy conditions? OPR 5. Relief. 11. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to lead evidence. 12. After the closure of the evidence, learned MACT has decided the claim petition, as referred to above. 13. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimant is now before this Court seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. According to the claimant, the learned MACT has erred in not granting the compensation on account of loss of income to the claimant, as it has been proved on record that the claimant had to avail extra ordinary leave w.e.f. 08.11.2007 to 01.04.2008 i.e. for a period of five months. According to the claimant, she was also forced to take earned leave, due to the injuries suffered by her, in the accident. 13.1 Similarly, the amount of compensation has been sought to be enhanced on the ground that the compensation, on account of disability, has not been granted. The amount, which was awarded to 10 2026:HHC:15092 the claimant, under the head “Pain and Sufferings”, is also stated to be on the lower side. Apart from this, the amount of compensation, which has been awarded to her, on account of loss of enjoyment, taxi charges, special diet, attendant charges are also stated to be on the lower side. 13.2 On the basis of the above facts, Ms. Kritika, Advocate, vice Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the claimant has, prayed that the award amount may kindly be enhanced, by allowing the appeal. 14. Per contra, Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2, has supported the award passed on the ground that adequate compensation has already been granted to the claimant and the appeal is stated to be devoid of merits and it has been prayed that the same may kindly be dismissed. 15. In this case, neither the Insurance Company, nor the owner of the offending vehicle has preferred the appeal before this Court. Meaning thereby, the controversy involved, in the present 11 2026:HHC:15092 case, is about the fact as to whether the amount of compensation, which has been awarded to the claimant, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’. 16. It is no longer res-integra that the primary object of the Court/Tribunal is to grant ‘just compensation’. The M.V Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. Strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable in the proceedings under the M.V. Act. 17. As stated above, in this case, only claimant has filed the appeal against the award passed by learned MACT, for enhancement of amount of compensation, awarded to her. 18. In order to achieve the object of legislation to grant ‘just compensation’, this Court has to see as to whether the amount of compensation, which has been awarded by the learned MACT, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not. In order to assess this issue, the evidence, which has been adduced on the file has to be seen by this Court. 19. After framing the issues, the claimant has examined Dr. Lenin Ligu (PW-1). This witness 12 2026:HHC:15092 deposed that from the years 2005 to 2008, he was posted as Junior Resident in Orthopedic Department in S.S. Hospital. On the basis of case summary, dated 14.12.2007, he deposed that claimant was referred from PGI Chandigarh. She was having the fracture of neck at C2 and C3, which was caused due to the accident. Her major surgery was conducted in PGI Chandigarh. He has proved the case summary Ext. PW1/A and Ext. PW1/B. The patient was also having two fractures of tibia and fibula. Plastic surgery was also done and during fixture, rod was inserted. Since, she was suffering from infection, as such, the said rod was removed and ring fixture were implanted and the same resulted into shortening of feet, due to which, portion of the bone was cut. She remained under treatment for about five months. Initially, she was indoor patient, later on she attended the hospital as outdoor patient. 19.1 In the cross-examination, this witness has denied that the claimant has now fully been recovered from the injuries. He has declared the injuries, found on the person of the claimant, as 13 2026:HHC:15092 major injuries. This witness feigned his ignorance about the fact as to whether the facility of ring fixture was available in PGI Chandigarh or not. 20. Dr. Arvind (PW-2), has proved the document Ext. PW2/A, which is treatment summary of the claimant. 21. Dr. R.C. Thakur (PW-4), has deposed that on 07.03.2007, he has treated the claimant at CHC Ghanwandal. He has proved the document Ext. PW2/A. He has noticed the following four injuries:- 1. Compound fracture left leg 4cm above the ankle. He advised X-ray for the same; 2. Contusion wound over scalp 14.2cm x 1.6cm skin deep on the scalp; 3. Contusion wound 2cm x 0.4cm skin deep 1cm before the left lower lid; and 4. Multiple bruises, violet coloured all over the body. 21.1 This witness has referred the patient to PGI Chandigarh for further management. 22. PW-5 Dr. Vivek Bansal, R.H. Hamirpur, deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted as Registrar in the Department of Orthopedics, IGMC Shimla. He was member of the Medical Board consisting of this witness, Prof. Mukand Lal and Prof. Manoj Thakur. The Board has examined Dr. Renu 14 2026:HHC:15092 Rattan on 21.04.2010, for the determination of medical disability. The Board issued the certificate Ext. PW5/A and according to this witness, the disability is regarding spine and lower limb. The disability in relation to lower left limb is 35% and in relation to spine is 10%. Lastly, he deposed that claimant can work with this disability, but, not comfortably. 23. PW-6 Dr. Poneet Mahajan, Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, IGMC Shimla, deposed that on 01.10.2007, he examined Dr. Renu Rattan in OPD. The patient was a follow up case of compound fracture of both bones of left lower leg. He found that there was abscess in the left lower limb. Incision and drainage was done and about 30 to 40 CC of pus was drained out. The pus was sent for culture sensitivity and the patient was given antibiotics. He proved the prescription slip Ext. PW6/A. 24. PW-7 Sukh Ram, Senior Assistant, Directorate of Health Services Shimla, deposed that at the relevant time, claimant was posted as Resident 15 2026:HHC:15092 Doctor Dermatology in IGMC Shimla. She joined services on 5th July, 1999 at Bilaspur. She remained on commuted leave w.e.f. 7th March 2007 to 26th April, 2007 and then on earned leave from 27.04.2007 to 21.09.2007. Thereafter, the claimant also remained on extra ordinary leave on and w.e.f. 08.11.2007 to 01.04.2008. 25. PW-8 Dinesh Kumar, Clerk IGMC Shimla, deposed that the claimant was selected for PG. Course in Department of Dermatology on 26.03.2007. She was supposed to join the said post on 26th March, 2007. Requisite fee was deposited by her. She actually joined the course on 02.04.2008 and completed the course on 19.02.2011, whereas, normal duration of the course was three years. 26. PW-9 Raju Ram, deposed that he was working as cook in the house of Dr. Girish, husband of the claimant from April, 2008 to December, 2010. He used to receive wages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month, from him. 27. PW-10 Smt. Savita, deposed that she was working as domestic helper with Dr. Renu Rattan 16 2026:HHC:15092 from July, 2009 to August, 2010 and she was receiving Rs. 1,200/- per month. 28. PW-11 Sunil Dutt, deposed that he took the claimant to IGMC, for four-five months. He took the claimant to PGI Chandigarh on 15 occasions and had charged Rs. 1700/- per trip. 29. PW-12 Dr. Renu Rattan (claimant), deposed that on 07.03.2007, she met with an accident near Naina Devi, District Bilaspur. She was travelling in the offending vehicle. Driver was driving the same at very fast speed, despite the fact that he was requested not to do so. Due to the fast speed, he could not control the bus and the same had rolled down in the gorge. She has specifically levelled the allegations against the driver that he was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. 29.1 This witness sustained injuries over her neck and legs. After the accident, she was taken to CHC Ghawandal, where first-aid was provided to her. Her medico legal examination was conducted. She proved the MLC Ext. PW2/A. Thereafter, she was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where, she remained 17 2026:HHC:15092 admit from 07th March, 2007 till 17th April, 2007. During her admission in PGI, on 08.03.2007, under general anesthesia, her bones were affixed. 29.2 On 12.03.2007, she underwent surgery for her neck. Due to the injuries in her legs, she suffered tissue losses and Doctor opined that till the formation of the tissues, further treatment cannot be given to her. 29.3 On 29.03.2007, surgery was conducted over her leg, but, the same was not successful. As such, she was again operated on 05.04.2007. On 10.04.2007, flap were fixed. On 17.04.2007, when she was discharged from the hospital, she was advised not to move and to have complete rest. She has proved the treatment summary as Ext. PW1/A. 29.4 After getting discharged from PGI Chandigarh, she had gone to her parents’ home at Una and visited PGI Chandigarh for follow up. She used to visit PGI Chandigarh, while lying in the ambulance/private vehicle and for that she had paid Rs. 1500/- per trip. 18 2026:HHC:15092 29.5 Again, she was admitted in PGI Chandigarh on 27.06.2007 and was discharged on 14.07.2007. During her admission there, surgery was conducted and expert nail implant was done. She again went to her parents’ house at Una. 29.6 This witness cracked the examination of Post Graduation Degree. She was interested to pursue her Post Graduation Degree in anesthesia or gynecology, but she was forced to do P.G. Dermatology. She has given the reasons for opting P.G. in Dermatology, due to her physical condition as in both the courses i.e. anesthesia or gynecology, a lot of physical strain was there. She has to join P.G. course till 03.05.2007. Due to the accident, she had joined the P.G. course on 01.10.2007. Due to the infection in the wounds and non healing of the fracture, she was forced to defer her P.G. course. 29.7 At the relevant time, her husband was working in Banaras Hindu University, as such, for further treatment, they had planned to get the treatment there. According to her, she suffered a gap in her leg, as such, she has undergo ilizarov fixation 19 2026:HHC:15092 (a specialized circular external fixator system used in orthopedics to treat complex, non-union fractures, bone lengthening and deformity correction). For that, she was taken to PGI Chandigarh on 08.11.2007, where, rod, which was fixed in her leg, was removed and for that, she remained admit in hospital for two days. 29.8 Thereafter, she was taken to Banaras, where, attempt was made to complete the procedure, but, the same could not be done, due to the fact that she was suffering from anaemia, for which, blood transfusion was done and on 10.12.2007, she was operated upon there. She remained admit in SSL Hospital in Banaras from 10.12.2007 to 14.12.2007. After the procedure, she visited the hospital for follow-ups on every second or third day and Doctor used to visit her daily. She came back from Banaras on 08.03.2008 and thereafter, her treatment had started in IGMC Shimla. On 02.04.2008, she had joined her PG course. Till 15.09.2008, due to the fixator in her leg, she was forced to use crutches. 20 2026:HHC:15092 She was also forced to hire a vehicle by paying Rs. 5000/- per month in order to attend her duties. 29.9 During that period, she had also visited PGI Chandigarh for follow-up, after hiring the taxi, for which, she had paid Rs. 1500/2000 per trip. She had stated that she has spent Rs. 10 lakhs on her treatment. Due to the injuries, her left leg has shortened and ankle joint become fixed. Due to the above facts, she is not comfortable in walking and there is lot of pressure on her right leg, resulting into backache. Due to the injuries, she could not perform her professional duties. She required a domestic help to do the domestic chores. She has deposed that the normal duration of PG course is three years, however, she completed her course in the month of February, 2011, due to which, her carrier had suffered a lot. She was forced to obtain leave for one year, resulting into financial losses to her. 29.10 At the relevant time, her son was about six years and her husband was also in government job, and due to this fact, she was forced to hire the services of two-three persons, in order to run her 21 2026:HHC:15092 domestic chores smoothly by paying Rs. 4-5 thousand per month, to them. During her treatment, she was advised to have special diet, for which, she used to spent Rs. 2-3 thousand per month. She has proved her disability certificate as Ext. PW5/A. 29.11 In the cross-examination, she has deposed that her duty timings were 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM and in case of emergency, she had to visit the hospital at any time. She has denied that after the accident, there is change in duty timings. She has denied that the amount spent on her treatment has been reimbursed. She has also admitted that she is not having any documentary evidence with regard to the fact that she had spent the amount on servants. Prior to the accident, she was having no domestic help. She has denied all the suggestions, which were put to her. 30. PW-13 Dr. Akash Prashar, proved the admission record of claimant. As per this witness, the claimant was admitted in PGI Chandigarh, initially on 07.03.2007, with the alleged history of road side accident. He has given the details of 22 2026:HHC:15092 admission of the claimant on various dates. In addition to this, he has also deposed about further admission of the claimant, as well as, about the surgeries, which were conducted there in PGI Chandigarh. Lastly, he has deposed that the claimant has suffered 10% disability in relation to spine and 35% in relation to her left leg. 31. Although, this witness has not examined the patient, nor treated her, but deposed on the basis of record, which was summoned from him. This witness has not issued the disability certificate. 32. To rebut this evidence, one Baldev Raj, GPA of respondent No. 1, deposed that offending vehicle was driven by Kirpal Singh, who has expired in the accident. In addition to this, he has deposed that the driver was neither rash nor negligent. 33. This is the entire evidence, which has been led by the parties, before the learned MACT. 34. As stated above, the learned MACT has granted compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/-, along with interest, at the rate of 12% per annum, to the claimant and the ultimate liability to pay the amount has been 23 2026:HHC:15092 fastened upon respondent No. 2, i.e. Insurance Company. 35. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant has filed the present appeal with a prayer to enhance the compensation amount, on the ground, that learned MACT has not awarded any amount of compensation, on account of loss of income, as according to her, it has been proved from the deposition of claimant and PW-7 Sukh Ram, that the claimant remained on extra ordinary leave w.e.f. 08.11.2007 to 01.04.2008, and as such, she has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,56,768/-, under the said head. 36. 1,56,768/-, under the said head. 36. Enhancement of the awarded amount has also been sought on the ground that due to the injuries/disability, sustained/suffered by her, she was forced to take medical and earned leave for a period of seven months, for which, she is also entitled for the compensation. The learned MACT has not granted any compensation to her on account of disability, as well as, adverse impact of the disability, on her future. The amount, which has been awarded to her, under the 24 2026:HHC:15092 head ‘pain and sufferings’, has also been stated to be very meagre. 37. On the basis of the above facts, Ms. Kritika, Advocate, appearing vice Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant has prayed that the awarded amount may kindly be enhanced, keeping in view the evidence, so adduced by the claimant. 38. In this case, neither the owner, nor the Insurance Company have preferred any appeal against the award. In such situation, this Court has to consider the fact, whether the amount of compensation, which has been granted to the claimant by the learned MACT falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’, or not, as the endeavour of the Court/Tribunal, should be to award ‘just compensation’, keeping in view the legislative intent in enacting the M.V. Act, which is a beneficial piece of Legislation. 39. Now this Court would proceed further to ascertain the fact, as to whether the amount awarded by the learned MACT falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not. 25 2026:HHC:15092 40. It is no longer res-integra that the proceedings under M.V. Act are summary in nature, where the liability of the tortfeasor is to be fixed on the preponderance of probabilities. As such, strict rule of Evidence Act, are not applicable. 41. Perusal of the award shows that the learned MACT, in the present case has awarded the amount of compensation under the various heads. Now, this Court would consider the same, on the basis of the evidence, so adduced, to determine the fact whether the said amount falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’, or not. (1) NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) Pain and Sufferings: 42. Under the head Pain and Sufferings, the learned MACT has granted Rs. 1,00,000/-, but, to the considered opinion of this Court, the said amount does not correspond with the period of hospitalization. The period of hospitalization, as well as, the period, during which, the claimant remained confine to bed, commenced from the date of accident i.e. 07.03.2007 26 2026:HHC:15092 and till 12.03.2008, when she had got removed pin from the fixator. 43. Apart from the claimant, PW-13 Dr. Akash Prashar, from PGI Chandigarh, also deposed that from 07.03.2007 to 17.04.2007, the claimant on various occasions was operated upon. The said period of hospitalization in PGI Chandigarh, thus comes to 41 days. The claimant, has also deposed that after the discharge from PGI Chandigarh, she again visited said hospital for follow up. Thereafter, when the gap was found in her bone, then she was again taken to PGI Chandigarh on 08.11.2007, where again surgery was conducted by removing the rod, which was inserted in her leg and on that occasion, her hospitalization was two days. Thereafter, she was taken to Banaras, where she remained admit from 10.12.2007 to 14.12.2007 i.e. five days. Thereafter, she has attended the said hospital at Banaras for follow ups. 44. Considering the fact that number of surgeries were conducted, on the person of the claimant, during her admission in different hospitals, this Court is of the view that the amount of Rs. 27 2026:HHC:15092 1,00,000/-, which has been awarded to her, is liable to be enhanced, keeping in view the fact that the said period was traumatic and painful for her. As such, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded under this head ‘pain and sufferings’, by the learned MACT, is liable to be enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. (b) Loss of Enjoyment of Life: 45. Period of hospitalization is held to be 48 days. As per the statement of PW-7 Sukh Ram, the claimant availed commuted leave from 07.03.2007 to 26.04.2007 and thereafter, she remained on earned leave from 27.07.2007 to 21.09.2007 and thereafter, she remained on extra ordinary leave from 08.11.2007 to 01.04.2008. Thus, the period of convalescence is held to be about one year. As per PW-8, Dinesh Kumar, Clerk IGMC Shimla, the claimant had joined P.G. course on 02.04.2008. Meaning thereby, total period of hospitalization and convalescence is held to be about 13 months. 46. The claimant has suffered 35% disability in relation to lower limb and 10% in relation to spine. Dr. Vivek Bansal (PW-5) has deposed that, although, the 28 2026:HHC:15092 claimant can work with this disability, but not comfortably. This deposition has not been countered by the respondents by putting any suggestion to this witness. As such, from this fact, it can be concluded that due to this disability, although, the claimant can work, but not comfortably. As such, this disability is liable to be considered under the head ‘Loss of Enjoyment of Life’, as the claimant has to live her rest of life with the disability. At the time of accident, age of the claimant was 38 years and she has been forced to live with this disability for rest of her life. 47. Although, as per the claim of the claimant, due to the injuries/disability sustained/suffered by her, she was forced to opt for Post Graduation in Dermatology, whereas, she was interested in anesthesia or gynecology. The said fact, without any documentary evidence, is speculative one, and it cannot be said that the claimant has suffered loss of earning capacity. As such, the disability, which has not resulted into any loss of earning capacity, is liable to be considered under this head and the same would not be considered under the head ‘Loss of Earnings and Earning Capacity’, as the 29 2026:HHC:15092 same amount to double enrichment, which is prohibited under the Law. 48. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would meet, if a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded to the claimant under the head ‘Loss of Enjoyment of Life’. (c) Shorten Expectations of Life: 49. Learned MACT has rightly not awarded any amount of compensation under the head ‘Shorten Expectations of Life’, as there is no evidence on record to demonstrate on record that due to the disability suffered by the claimant, her life has shortened. (2) PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) Loss of Earnings and Earning Capacity: 50. As held above, there is no evidence on the record to demonstrate that due to the disability, there is any adverse impact on the earning capacity of the claimant. She has joined the P.G. course on 02.04.2008 and completed her course on 19.02.2011, as deposed by PW-8 Dinesh Kumar, Clerk, IGMC Shimla. 51. As per the deposition of PW-7, the claimant remained on earned leave from 27.04.2007 to 30 2026:HHC:15092 21.09.2007 i.e. around six months. The salary of the claimant at the relevant time was Rs. 31,352/- per month. Thus, she is entitled for a sum of Rs. 31,352/- x 6 = Rs. 1,88,112/-. 52. In addition to this, as per deposition of PW-7, thereafter, the claimant, remained on extra ordinary leave w.e.f. 08.11.2007 to 01.04.2008. Said period, thus, comes about five months. During the extra ordinary leave, the claimant had not received any salary, for which, she is liable to be compensated under the head ‘Loss of Earnings’, which comes to Rs. 31,352/- x 5 = Rs. 1,56,760/-. 53. As stated above, there is no loss in the earning capacity, even on account of disability. Moreover, disability has been considered by this Court, while deciding the compensation of head under ‘Loss of Enjoyment of Life’, as such, the said compensation is not liable to be considered under this head. 54. Thus, the learned MACT has fallen into error for not awarding anything under the head ‘Loss of Earning’. (b) Medical Expenses: 31 2026:HHC:15092 55. Learned MACT has awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the head ‘Medical Expenses’, whereas the claimant is in government job and it is not her case that she had not received the amount spent on her treatment under medical reimbursement scheme. As such, the learned MACT has fallen into error by providing Rs. 10,000/- under this head, which is accordingly set aside. (c) Transportation Charges: 56. The learned MACT has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head, which does not require any interference. (d) Special Diet and Attendant Charges: 57. Under this head, the learned MACT has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000 and to the considered opinion of this Court, the said amount does not require any interference. 58. In view of the above, the total amount of compensation, which was awarded by the learned MACT, as Rs. 3,20,000/-, is liable to be enhanced, which is accordingly enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- + Rs. 32 2026:HHC:15092 5,00,000/- + Rs. 1,88,112/- + Rs. 1,56,760/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- = Rs. 10,69,872/-. 59. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is liable to be interfered by this Court, as learned MACT has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which is liable to be reduced to 7.5% per annum, which is reduced accordingly. 60. 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. 3,20,000/- to Rs. 10,69,872/-, 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. 61. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs. 62. Memo of costs be prepared. 63. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 30th April, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)