Aasif vs Imran And Ors on 7 April, 2026

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

                                                                  -1-
               FAO-495-2015 (O&M)


                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                  FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

               AASIF (MINOR) THROUGH HIS FATHER                                   ......Appellant

                                                         Vs.

               IMRAN & ORS                                                        ......Respondents

                                                                  Reserved on: 02.04.2026
                                                                  Pronounced on: 07.04.2026
                                                                  Uploaded on: 08.04.2026

               Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced?                   NO
               Whether full judgment is pronounced?                                             YES

               CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

               Present:                Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate
                                       for the appellant.

                                       Mr. U.M. Khan, Advocate
                                       for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

                                       Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate
                                       for respondent No.3.

                                                                  ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

22.05.2014 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short '1988 Act'), by the learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Mewat (in short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation,

granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.4,88,636/- along with 7.5%

interest on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant - Aasif (minor)

in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 08.02.2013.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to

quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the

sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves

to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the

compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently

argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as

assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant.

Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole

record of this case with their able assistance.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of

compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj

Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has

held as under:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).

6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :

Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following Illustration 'A' : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:

a) Annual income before the accident : Rs. 36,000/-.

b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/-

Illustration 'B' : The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000/- per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000/- .

b) Loss of future earning per annum (75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/-

Illustration 'C' : The injured was 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-

b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/-

c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18

d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/-

[Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)].

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under

Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following

aspects:-

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

" Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs. State

Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:-

" 7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined by us:

(a) the application of multiplier of '17' instead of '18';

The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para 46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be '18' along with factoring in the extent of disability.

The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to be '18' and not '17'.

(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent disability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish (supra) in para 8:

"8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:

(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;

(ii) Loss of income including future income;

(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;

(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and

(v) Loss of expectation of life."

[emphasis supplied] The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.

In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under:

"Nature of injury:

(i) compound fracture shaft left humerus

(ii) fracture both bones left forearm

(iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm

(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand

(v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur

(vi) fracture shaft femur

(vii) fracture both bones left leg We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court.

Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on

authenticity of this order/judgment.
FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration.

We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 61(iii), considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case.

(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish's case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court.

CONCLUSION

8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled principles, the calculation of compensation by the appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would have to be adopted as follows:
                                                       Heads                        Awarded
                                           Loss of earning power                 Rs. 9,81,978/-
                                           (Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
                                           Future prospects (50 per cent          Rs.4,90,989/-
                                           addition)
                                           Medical expenses including            Rs.18,46,864/-
                                           transport         charges,
                                           nourishment, etc.
                                           Loss of matrimonial prospects          Rs.5,00,000/-
                                           Loss of comfort, loss of               Rs.1,50,000/-
                                           amenities and mental agony
                                           Pain and suffering                     Rs.2,00,000/-
                                                       Total                     Rs.41,69,831/-
The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of

Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of

9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the minor Aasif was 12

years of age at the time of the accident. The learned tribunal has committed a

manifest error in not calculating loss of income of the minor, therefore, this Court

deems it fit to calculate it as under.

10. As far as the income of the minor is concerned, the Apex Court in its

recent authoritative pronouncement Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai

Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 INSC 1070, has categorically held that a minor child who

dies or suffers permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident cannot be equated

with a non-earning individual merely because the child was not engaged in gainful

employment at the time of the accident. The Court has further clarified that, in

such cases, the computation of compensation under the head "loss of income"

must be undertaken by adopting at the very least the minimum wages prescribed

for a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the State where the

cause of action arises. The relevant extract from the aforesaid judgment is

reproduced as under:-

"9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we

are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the

Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts

below have failed to take into account the monthly income of

the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation.
It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated

principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or

permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be

placed in the same category as a non- earning individual for

the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of

the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation

under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting,

at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled

workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective

State where the cause of action arises. The said observation

was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and

Ors., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and

Anr."

11. Therefore, considering the judgment referred to above and the

minimum wages of a skilled worker prevalent at the time of accident, this Court

deems it fit to reassess the income of claimant/appellant as Rs.5,500/-.

12. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal erred

in not adding future prospects to the income of the deceased. Considering the age

of the deceased (12 years) 40% is to be added as future prospects. Moreover, no

multiplier was applied by the learned Tribunal. In view of the age of the minor, the

appropriate multiplier of 18 is liable to be applied.

13. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal has

awarded the compensation on the lower side to the claimant under the heads of

Pain and suffering, which is required to be enhanced.

14. It is trite that permanent disability suffered by an individual not only

impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities, but there are multiple

non-quantifiable implications for the victim. Further, the very fact that healthy

person turns into invalid being deprived of normal companionship and incapable

of leading a productive life makes one suffer loss of dignity. As borne out from the

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

record, the minor has suffered grievous injuries on his person. He remained in

Sanya Hospital from 08.02.2013 to 26.02.2013. Dr. Farukh PW-3 deposed

regarding the disability of the minor as assessed by the medical board at PGIMS.

Further, he placed on record the disability certificate Ex.PW3/A, which shows the

disability incurred by the minor as 50%. In addition to this, various bills Ex.P152

to Ex.P156 were placed on record. The minor being only 12 years of age suffered

immense pain due to the accident and will probably be under the horrifying effect

of this traumatic experience for whole his life. This fairly concludes the fact that

the appellant/claimant has suffered immense amount of pain and agony due to the

accident in question.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'KS Muralidhar versus R

Subbulakshmi and another 2024 INSC 886 highlighted the intangible but

devastating consequence of pain and suffering. The relevant portion of the same is

reproduce as under:-

"15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries

suffered, the `pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long

nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant,

and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find

the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as

such, award Rs.15,00,000/- under the head `pain and

suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the

claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a

sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just,

fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

16. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and

circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant

compensation of 5 lakhs under the heads of pain and suffering.

17. Further perusal of the record shows that the minor has suffered various

grievous injuries on his body making his life miserable. As a result, he had to depend

on others for his daily activities and likely to have employed an attendant to assist

him for his physical movements. This Court has dealt with similar issue in case titled

as Ajay Kumar vs. Jasbir Singh and others, passed in FAO No 1356-2007, decided

on 18.02.2025. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

"ATTENDANT CHARGES

36. So far as attendant charges is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others, 2020(2)R.C.R.(Civil) 27,

held that where injured was a female child aged about12 years and date

of the accident was 18.10.2007 and it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court that to determine the attendant charges, Multiplier system should

be applied. Relevant paragraphs No. 22 and 25 of the aforesaid judgment

are as under:
"22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs.2,500 per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs. 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various facts are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was recognized by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, 1958-65 ACJ 179 (SC).
authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognized as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of just compensation' within the meaning of the Act.

23. xxxxx

24. xxxxx

25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the basic amount taken for determining attendant charges is very much on the lower side. We must remember that this little girl is severely suffering from incontinence meaning that she does not have control over her bodily functions like passing urine and faeces. As she grows older, she will not be able to handle her periods. She requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a day. She requires an attendant who though may not be medically trained but must be capable of handling a child who is bedridden. She would require an attendant who would ensure that she does not suffer from bed sores. The claimant has placed before us a notification of the State of Haryana of the year 2010, wherein the wages for skilled labourer is Rs.4,846 per month. We, therefore, assess the cost of one attendant at Rs.5,000 and she will require two attendants which works out to Rs.10,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum, and using the multiplier of

18 it works out Rs. 21,60,000 for attendant charges for her entire life. This take care of all the pecuniary damages.

37. In view of the above as per the Disability Certificate, which

is 100% and which requires full-time attendant, therefore, it would be

appropriate to decide the attendant charges accordingly. 100%

disability would require day and night attendants, meaning thereby

two attendants would be required. Further 100% disability of the

appellant-claimant would require trained attendant i.e. who should

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

have knowledge of nursing and experience as well. Further the

minimum amount which an attendant would demand is Rs.10,000/-.

Since two attendants are required for 100% disability, it would be

appropriate to take the minimum amount of Rs.10,000/- each of two

attendants i.e. amounting to Rs.20,000/- for two attendants.

38. In the instant case, there is substantial medical evidence

establishing that the injured appellant-claimant has suffered from a

100% disability of the lower limb, as per Ex. P-4. Over the past 20

years since the accident on 31.05.2005, the injured has faced

significant challenges in leading a normal life. Furthermore, medical

testimony confirms that the injured person is unable to carry out

daily activities independently.

39. Applying the principles laid down in Kajal's case (supra)

it is evident that the appellant-claimant requires continuous

assistance from two attendants for 24 hours a day. In Kajal's case

(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the multiplier

system must be followed to determine attendant charges, taking into

account factors such as longevity, inflation, interest rates, and the

uncertainties of life. The Court also highlighted that an individual

with severe disabilities requires dedicated attendants, even if they are

not medically trained, to ensure proper care and prevent further

complications such as bedsores.

18. In view of the above judgment and considering young age and disability

suffered by the minor, he is entitled to attendant charges to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.

19. A further perusal of the award shows that the learned tribunal erred in

not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of 'loss of marriage

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

prospects', despite the claimant being only 12 years old at the time of the accident

and having his entire life before him. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the

impact of injury on his ability to marry, find a life partner, and enjoy normal

matrimonial prospects. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in its decision in Rahul

Ganpat Rao Sable versus National Insurance Company, 2023 (3) RCR (Civil)

574 squarely addresses this omission and recognizes that such non-pecuniary loss

arising from permanent disability including loss of marriage prospects deserves

just compensation.

20. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

"Loss of Marriage prospects:

20. No compensation has been awarded under the above head.

Considering the nature of injuries duly approved and certified, the appellant would be entitled to compensation under loss of marriage prospects. Again, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Chaus Tausif Almiya (supra), we award afixed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs under the said head.In view of the above, this Court in the interest of justice is awarding 50000 under the conventional head of 'loss of marriage prospects."

21. Therefore, in accordance with the above referred to judgment and

considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court deems it

fit to award Rs.4,00,000/- under the head of loss of marriage prospects.

22. A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is granted

by the learned Tribunal under the heads of loss of amenities of life and no amount

was granted under the heads of transportation, special diet and medical expenses

for future treatment. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

RELIEF

23. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated

22.05.2014 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid

down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the appellant-claimant is

held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as calculated below:-
                             Sr. No. Heads                                       Compensation Awarded
                                   1     Income                                  Rs.5,500/-
                                   2     Loss of future prospects (40%)          Rs.2,200/-
                                                                                 (40% of Rs.5,500 /-)
                                   3     Annual Income                           Rs.92,400/-
                                                                                 (Rs.7700/- X 12)
                                   4     Loss of future earning on account Rs.46,200/-
                                         of 50% disability                 (Rs. 92,400 /- X 50%)
                                   5     Multiplier of 18                        Rs.8,31,600/-
                                                                                 (Rs.46,200 /-X 18)
                                   6     Medical Expenses                        Rs.88,636/-
                                   7     Pain and suffering                      Rs.5,00,000/-
                                   8     Attendant Charges                       Rs.1,00,000/-
                                   9     Transportation Charges                  Rs.70,000/-
                                  10     Loss of amenities of life + loss of Rs.6,00,000/-
                                         marriage prospects
                                  11     Future medical expenses                 Rs.1,00,000/-
                                  12     Special Diet                            Rs.1,00,000/-
                                  13     Total compensation awarded:-            Rs.23,90,236/-
                                  14     Deduction:-                             Rs.4,88,636/-
                                         Amount awarded by Tribunal
                                  15     Enhanced             amount          of Rs.19,01,600/-
                                         compensation                            (23,90,236 - 4,88,636)
24. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176

and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5

Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9%

per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-495-2015 (O&M)

25. Consequently, respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the enhanced amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period

of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is

directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest to

the appellant-claimant. The appellant-claimant is directed to furnish his bank

account details to the Tribunal.

26. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is hereby directed to disburse

the current scheduled fee to Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate, within a period of 20

days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, in view of the order

dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007 by this Court.

27. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
               07.04.2026                                                  (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
               Ayub/Saahil                                                      JUDGE
                                       Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
                                       Whether reportable              : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.


		            