1 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(MV) No.591 of 2018 Reserved on:- 06.05.2026 Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 Oriental Insurance Company Limited …Appellant Versus Shailender Tiwari and Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ___________________________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Soma Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. ______________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge Appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’), against the award dated 06.08.2018, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in MAC Petition No.12-NL/2 of 2015, titled as Shailender Tiwari versus Karam Chand and others. 2. While, deciding the above titled claim petition, learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent-Shailender Tiwari and awarded a sum of Rs.20,75,600/- 2 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, against the respondents. However, ultimate liability to pay the amount has been fastened upon the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the present appeal, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to by the learned Tribunal. 4. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:- 4.1. Petitioner-Shailender Tiwari has filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of M.V. Act, seeking compensation, on account of multiple injuries/disability sustained/suffered by him, in a motor vehicular accident, involving Vehicle No.HP-64B-2925 (hereinafter referred as ‘the offending vehicle’), against the respondents, being owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. 4.2. According to the petitioner, accident had taken place on 28.08.2014 at about 9:30 AM, when, he, along with his brother, was going on Motorcycle No.HP-14CT-6258. When, they reached near Harraipur, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, meanwhile, offending vehicle, came there being driven by respondent No.2, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. Resultantly, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. After the accident, claimant was 3 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) firstly taken to Malhotra Hospital Baddi, from where, he was shifted to ESI Hospital Katha and then, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh, where, he remained admit. At the time of accident, petitioner was about 28 years of age and was working as Operator Printing in Nugenic Pharma Private Limited, 69-A, EPIP, Phase-I, Jharmajri, District Solan. His salary has been pleaded to be Rs.22,000/- per month, which includes Rs.13,500/- as basic salary, plus overtime charges. 4.3. It is his further case that due to the accident, he has become permanently disabled and is suffering from 100% functional disability. The claimant has pleaded about his bright past and bleak future. 4.4. Since the accident in question has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, while driving the offending vehicle, as such, the claimant has sought the amount of compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-, along with interest @12% per annum, from the respondents. 5. When, put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their joint reply, in which, they have pleaded that no accident had taken place with the offending vehicle. The FIR has falsely been lodged. Other contents of the claim petition have been denied. 4 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) 6. Oriental Insurance Company insurer of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply, by taking preliminary objections, that the claim petition is not maintainable. The accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the injured himself, as, he was driving Motorcycle No.HP-14CT-6258 with pillion rider, without driving license in violation of the provisions of M.V. Act. The offending vehicle was being permitted to ply without any driving license and in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 6.1. Elaborating their stand, it has also been pleaded that the owner of the vehicle, i.e. respondent No.1, was well aware and conscious about the fact that his driver was not having a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time. 6.2. The claim petition has been filed by the petitioner in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have merely been denied for want of knowledge. It has also been reasserted that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of injured himself. 7. Thus, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 5 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) 8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 07.06.2016: 1). Whether on the morning of 28.08.2014 around 9:30 a.m. near Harraipur, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, on public highway, respondent No.2 was driving Pick-up bearing registration No.HP-64B-2925 rashly and negligently which resulted in causing multiple injuries on person of the petitioner, as alleged? OPP. 2). Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, as prayed for? OPP. 3). Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR. 4). Whether the aforesaid vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3. 5) Whether the petition of the petitioner is collusive? OPR-3. 6). Relief. 9. Thereafter, parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 10. After closure of the evidence, the learned Tribunal, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, has allowed the claim petition, as referred to above. 11. Feeling aggrieved from the said findings, Oriental Insurance Company has filed the present appeal before this Court, assailing the award, on the ground, that the claimant has miserably 6 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) failed to prove/establish on record the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Neither, any independent witness, nor, any eye witness has been examined to prove the said fact. As such, according to learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, sine qua non for filing the petition, under Section 166 of M.V. Act has not been proved, in this case. 12. Findings of the learned Tribunal have further been assailed on the ground that the learned Tribunal, ought to have dismissed the claim petition, on the ground that the accident in question had taken place due to the sole negligence of the claimant himself. Learned Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the statement of PW-1 Ajab Singh. 13. The Oriental Insurance Company has contested the liability to pay the amount of compensation, on the ground that the owner produced one Driving License Ex.R4, purported to have been issued by the District Transport Officer Sunheboto Nagaland, but, on verification, the same could not be traced. 14. According to the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has also ignored the fact that as per police Report Ex.R5, driver has been charge sheeted, under Section 187 of M.V. Act and as per Ex.R7, the information which has been received from the Public Information Officer, Sunhebotor Nagaland, 7 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) under Right to Information Act, it has clearly been established that the driver was holding a fake driving license. 15. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, appearing for the claimant has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and award passed by the learned Tribunal may kindly be set-aside. 16. Per contra, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the claimant has supported the award and prayed that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence, so adduced, by the claimant, as the liability of the tort feasor is to be fixed, on the touch stone of the preponderance of the probabilities. In addition to this, a prayer has also been made to enhance the amount of compensation, so that the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’. 17. Ms. Soma Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, has supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and prayed that the appeal sans merit and same may kindly be dismissed. 18. In this case, the Insurance Company has prayed that the award may kindly be set-aside, as the sine qua non for awarding compensation i.e. rash and negligent driving of 8 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) respondent No.2, while driving the offending vehicle has not been proved. 19. Pleadings are backbone of the case of the parties. The claimant has pleaded in para-23 of the claim petition, that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner. These allegations have been denied by the respondents, by pleading that respondent No.1, was not driving the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner. According to them, no accident took place with the vehicle, owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2. 20. So far as registration of the FIR is concerned, according to them, the same has falsely been lodged, in order to get the claim. Interestingly, the Oriental Insurance Company has moved a step further, by pleading that the claim petition is not maintainable, as the accident in question has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of injured himself, while, driving Motorcycle No.HP-14CT-6258. The reply of Oriental Insurance Company is totally silent about the fact, as to how, the Company came to know about the fact that the accident in question had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the injured himself, as, this stand has not been taken by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. When, this material aspect, i.e. rashness 9 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) and negligence of claimant himself, is missing, in the reply of respondents No.1 and 2, then, how the same can be pleaded by the Oriental Insurance Company, in the reply, is a question, which has not been answered by the learned counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company. Even otherwise, the claimant has proved the copy of FIR No.207 of 2014, as Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 specifically stated that the charge sheet has been filed against Banty son of Ram Dayal, who is respondent No.2. 21. Claimant-Shailender Tiwari, while, appearing in the witness box, as PW-2, has specifically alleged against respondent No.2, qua his rash and negligent driving, while driving the offending vehicle. In the cross examination, by learned counsel appearing the respondents, he has denied that the accident in question had taken place, due to his rash and negligent driving. 22. Owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1), appeared in the witness box, as RW-1 and filed his affidavit, in examination-in-chief, as Ex. RW-1/A, in which, he has deposed that he is owner of the offending vehicle and six months, prior to ‘the accident’, he had employed respondent No.2, as driver, after perusing his license. Thereafter, as per the directions of this witness, respondent No.2, has driven the offending vehicle and according to him, he was driving the vehicle, in a proper manner. 10 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) 23. In his examination-in-chief, although, he has deposed that no accident had taken place, involving his vehicle, but, in the opening lines of his examination-in-chief, he has specifically deposed that respondent No.2, was employed about six months prior to the accident. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW-1/A, which was lodged on the statement of claimant-Shailender Tiwari, who has specifically alleged about the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, while driving the offending vehicle. 24. Registration of FIR is a prima-facie proof of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, while, driving the offending vehicle. Had the false FIR, been registered against respondent No.2, then, in normal circumstances, he would have approached the higher authorities/police, by making the complaint to them, with regard to his involvement, in the false case. Admittedly, nothing has been done by respondent No.1, as well as, respondent No.2. Offending vehicle was in the exclusive control of respondent No.2, at the relevant time and it was for him to plead and prove, as to how, the accident in question had taken place. 25. At the cost of repetition, respondents No.1 and 2, in their reply, have not taken the plea, with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself, but, the same has been 11 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) taken by the Oriental Insurance Company, that too, without any explanation. 26. Admittedly, respondent No.2, (driver) has not appeared in the witness box, nor, any efforts have been made by the Oriental Insurance Company to examine him, as their witness to prove and probablise their stand, about the fact that the accident in question had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of claimant himself. 27. In this case, learned senior counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Lachoo Ram and others versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 254. With due respect to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as, in this case, the FIR in question has been lodged, by the claimant himself, by levelling the allegations of rash and negligent driving and not only this, in order to substantiate the above facts, he himself appeared in the witness box and deposed categorically about the rashness and negligence of driver of the offending vehicle, in unequivocal terms. 28. In view of statement of PW-1, police has also filed the charge sheet, against the driver of the offending vehicle, 12 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) whereas, the driver has not opted to put appearance, in the witness box to depose contrary to the stand, as taken by the claimant, as such, if the evidence of the claimant, as well as, PW-1, along with FIR in question is seen on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities, the claimant has proved the ingredients of seeking compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act, i.e. rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 29. If, the evidence, adduced by the claimant, in the present case, is seen, in light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sunita and others versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 486, then, the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company hold no water. Relevant paragraph-30 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:- “30. Clearly, the evidence given by Bhagchand withstood the respondents’ scrutiny and the respondents were unable to shake his evidence. In turn, the High Court has failed to take note of the absence of cross examination of this witness by the respondents, leave alone the Tribunal’s finding on the same, and instead, deliberated on the reliability of Bhagchand’s (A.D.2) evidence from the viewpoint of him not being named in the list of eye witnesses in the criminal proceedings, without even mentioning as to why such absence from the list is fatal to the case of the appellants. This approach of the High Court is mystifying, especially in light of this Court’s observation (as set out in Parmeshwari and reiterated in Mangla Ram ) that the strict principles of proof in a criminal case will not be applicable in a claim for compensation under the Act and further, that the standard to be followed in such claims is one of preponderance of probability rather than one of proof 13 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a witness in motor accident claim who has not been named in the list of witnesses in the criminal case. What is essential is that the opposite party should get a fair opportunity to cross examine the concerned witness. Once that is done, it will not be open to them to complain about any prejudice caused to them. If there was any doubt to be cast on the veracity of the witness, the same should have come out in cross examination, for which opportunity was granted to the respondents by the Tribunal.” (self-emphasis supplied) 30. In view of the above discussion, the contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company, qua the fact that the rashness and negligence of the driver has not been proved, is not liable to be accepted and consequently, the same is rejected. 31. So far as the plea, which has been taken by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company, qua the fact that the police has also charge-sheeted the driver of the offending vehicle, under Section 187 M.V. Act, and from this fact, an inference is prayed to be drawn by this Court to conclude that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving license. This plea is too short to accept the said contention, as the onus is upon the Oriental Insurance Company to prove the fact, that the owner of the offending vehicle has permitted respondent No.2, to drive the vehicle knowingly that he is not having a valid and effective driving license. 14 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) 32. As stated above, owner-respondent No.1, appeared in the witness box, as RW-1 and categorically stated that when, he had engaged respondent No.2-Banty, as driver of the offending vehicle, he had shown his license to him and thereafter, respondent No.1, had conducted his test and then, concluded that he can drive in a right manner and engaged him, as driver, on the basis of his experience. 33. Although, suggestion has been given that respondent No.2, was not having a driving license, but, he has denied the said suggestion and further in cross-examination, he has feigned his ignorance about the fact, whether, respondent No.2 had produced the driving license to the police, after the accident or not. 34. In this case, Oriental Insurance Company has not summoned the driver of the vehicle (respondent No.2), as its witness to prove/probablise that he was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, nor, any other witness has been examined to prove that respondent No.1, has handed over the offending vehicle to respondent No.2, knowing fully well that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Copy of the charge sheet has been produced as Ex.R5, by the Oriental Insurance Company. 15 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) 35. The mere fact that during investigation, respondent No.2, could not produce Driving License is, too short to conclude that he was not having a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle. In addition to this, Ex.R7, has been relied upon by the Oriental Insurance Company to demonstrate that the driving license of respondent No.2 was fake/not valid. As per information obtained, under Right to Information Act, the Public Information Officer-cum-District Transport Officer Sunheboto Nagaland has informed that the Driving License No.11542/TV/Z/2010, is not found in any of the office records, as such, he has conveyed his inability to provide any information or to verify the genuineness of the said driving license. Even, from this report also, it cannot be said that the driving license was not valid, as the Driving License No.11542/TV/Z/2010 was not found in any of the office records. 36. At the cost of repetition, company is obliged to prove that there is willful violation of the insurance policy, on behalf of the insured, by handing over the vehicle to a person, knowing fully well that the said person is not having a valid and effective driving license. This type of evidence is lacking in the present case, as such, said contention of learned counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company has rightly been rejected by the learned Tribunal, while, deciding Issue No.4. If, the stand of the Oriental 16 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) Insurance Company is seen in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217, then, there is no occasion for this Court to differ from the findings returned by the learned Tribunal in para-4 of the judgment. Relevant paragraph-10 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh’s case (supra). If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable for the compensation.” (self-emphasis supplied) 37. In view of the above legal position, Oriental Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove willful violation of the insurance policy, as such, learned Tribunal has rightly decided 17 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) Issue No.4, in favour of respondent No.1 and against respondent No.3. 38. It is no longer res-integra that the endeavour of the learned Tribunal/Court is to grant ‘just compensation’. In the present case, the claimant has neither filed the appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation, nor, filed cross objections, in the present appeal. Non filing of the appeal does not preclude this Court from assessing the evidence, as well as, the pleadings adduced before the learned Tribunal, to ascertain the fact as to whether, the compensation, which has been awarded, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not. Moreover, appeal is continuation of the original proceedings. 39. Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation, under different heads, but, separate discussion has not been done by the learned Tribunal. Since, the appeal is continuation of the original proceedings, as such, the evidence adduced, before the learned Tribunal is required to be discussed to ascertain the fact as to whether ‘just compensation’ has been awarded to the claimant or not. 40. It is no longer res-integra that while, assessing the amount of compensation, for which, the claimant is entitled, the same is to be awarded under different heads. 18 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES: 1. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: 41. As per the claimant, after accident, he was taken to Malhotra Hospital, Baddi from where, he was referred to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh, where, he remained admit and his treatment was done. The claimant has placed on record the invoice/bill of Malhotra Hospital, Baddi, according to which, he was admitted on 28.08.2014 and was discharged on 12.09.2014. Meaning thereby, the total period of hospitalization comes to be 16 days. Thereafter, he was taken to Government Medical College and Hospital Sector-32 Chandigarh, where, he remained admit. Although, the claimant has pleaded that after getting treatment from Malhotra Hospital, Baddi, he was taken to ESI Hospital, Katha and thereafter, to Government Medical College and Hospital Sector-32 Chandigarh, where, he remained admit, however, neither any document to prove the said fact has been placed on record, nor, any doctor has been examined from the said hospital. The claimant in order to prove his disability has examined Doctor Vishal Verma, Senior Resident, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Government Medical College and Hospital Sector-32, Chandigarh, as PW-4. Nothing has been even suggested to him that the claimant remained admit with said hospital. As such, in the absence of any evidence, the said stand cannot be 19 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) taken as gospel truth. Thus, the total period of hospitalization comes to be 16 days. The said period of hospitalization must be pragmatic and painful to the claimant, for which, he is held entitled for a sum of Rs.32,000/-, as such, the amount, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ as Rs.50,000/- is liable to be reduced to Rs.32,000/- 2. L OSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE:- 42. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on account of future discomfort and inconvenience. PW-4 Dr. Vishal Verma, has proved the disability certificate Ex.PW-4/A and as per the certificate, the claimant has suffered 54% permanent disability. Relevant portion of the said document is reproduced as under:- “This is to verify that Sailender Tiwari S/o Daya Ram Tiwari, 29 years male, C.R. No.141202408 resident of # Village Nevadhiya Tehsil Jaunpur Sadar Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh has been diagnosed as a post operated case of fracture left tibia with ankle arthrodesis left side with left great toe amputation with 1” shortening with difficulty in squatting and cross leg sitting with scaring left ankle and foot. He is permanently physically disabled by 54% (Fifty four percent only) as evaluated according to the manual for Orthopaedics surgeons in evaluating permanent physical impairment/disability (complied at ALMICO/AIIMS) RCI (Rehabilitation Council of India).” 43. Considering the said disability, this Court is of the view that the claimant might have taken at least 6 months for convalescence. He could not enjoy the life of a normal human being 20 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) for a period of about 7 months (i.e. during the period of convalescence and hospitalization). 44. Considering the said period, this Court is of the view that the amount of Rs.50,000/-, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced. Consequently, the claimant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head. 45. At the time of accident, claimant was about 28 years of age and at the young age, he was forced to confine to bed. Although, there is disability, which has been assessed vide certificate Ex.PW-4/A, however, the said disability is not being considered, under this head as the same is required to be considered, at the time of deciding the amount of compensation, under the head ‘loss of earnings and earning capacity’. Moreover, double enrichment is prohibited under the law. 3. SHORTEN EXPECTANCY OF LIFE: 46. No evidence has been adduced to demonstrate that due to the injuries sustained/disability suffered, the normal life span of the claimant has been shortened, as such, no amount of compensation is required to be given under this head. PECUNIARY DAMAGES: 1. LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY: 21 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) 47. Claimant has been proved to be working with Nugenic Pharma Private Limited and as per the document Ex.PW-3/A, in the month of August, 2013, his salary was Rs.19,500/- along with his production incentive. The learned Tribunal has assessed income of the claimant, at the time of accident, as Rs.15,500/-. The said findings do not require for any interference by this Court. The learned Tribunal has not awarded anything under the head ‘loss of earnings’. Considering the period of convalescence and hospitalization, the claimant could not contribute to his family for a period of seven months, as such, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,500 x 7=Rs.1,08,500/-. LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY: 48. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,52,400/- under the head ‘loss of earning capacity’. The said findings do not require any interference, being based upon correct appreciation of the factual and legal preposition. 3. SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES: 49. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘attendant charges’, whereas, nothing has been awarded to the claimant for special diet. Considering the period of convalescence and hospitalization, and extent of disability suffered by the claimant, this Court is of the view that for a period of about 7 22 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) months, the claimant might have taken the special diet and also required the services of an attendant. Thus, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.200/-per day x 240 days= Rs.48,000/- under the head ‘special diet’. For the attendant charges, even, for the pro-bono services rendered to him, the claimant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head ‘attendant charges’. 4. MEDICAL EXPENSES: 50. The amount, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads ‘medical bills’ and ‘taxi bills’ i.e. Rs.2,76,674/- and Rs.36,520/- do not require for any interference by this Court, based upon the documentary evidence. 51. Considering all these facts, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.32,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-+ Rs.1,08,500/-+ Rs.16,52,400/-+ Rs.48,000/-+ Rs.30,000/-+ Rs.2,76,674/- +Rs.36520/-=Total Rs.22,84,094/-. 52. In view of the prevailing rate of interest of the nationalized banks, the rate of interest, which has been granted by the learned Tribunal 8% is liable to be reduced to 7.5% per annum The learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Oriental Insurance Company. 53. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal is enhanced from 23 ( 2026:HHC:18423 ) Rs.20,75,600/- to Rs.22,84,094/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole amount. 54. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs. 55 Pending application(s) if any, are also disposed of. 56. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) Judge May 19, 2026 (subhash)