FAO No.5480 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5480 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.11.2011 Manjot Kaur ...Appellant Versus Karam Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Vinod Mehandru, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.9.2009, on account of the injuries received by her in an accident that occurred on 1.12.2007. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 1 lac as compensation; `16,000/- as medical expenses and ` 6,000/- towards pain and suffering. The total amount awarded is ` 1,22,000/- as compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was a seven years old young girl at the time of the accident. She was a student of 2nd Class. He further contends that as per disability certificate Ex.PW2/A, she suffered 50% permanent disability. He further contends that the appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor FAO No.5480 of 2010 2 Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short 'the Act'), therefore, the compensation should have been determined under the 2nd Scheduled appended with the Act. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of `.1 lac towards disability, `16000/- towards medical expenses and `6000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. He further contends that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects, transportation, special diet, attendant and other conventional heads. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and adequate compensation and therefore, there is no scope of any enhancement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, according to the 2nd Schedule appended with the Act, upto the age of 15 years, the income of ` 3000/- per month and multiplier of 15 should be applied. In the instant case, admittedly, the age of the claimant was 7 years and she was studying in 2nd Class at the time of her accident. It is also proved on record that as per disability certificate Ex.PW2/A, she suffered 50% permanent disability, which has definitely affected her future prospects. Therefore, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met, if her income is assessed at ` 1500/- per month ( the appellant has suffered 50% permanent disability) and multiplier of 15 is to be applied. Ordered accordingly. The amount of ` 6000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering being inadequate, keeping in view the tender age of victim is FAO No.5480 of 2010 3 enhanced to `25000/- total (6000 + 19,000). Accordingly, the total compensation comes to ` 3,05,000/- (1500/-p.m. (income) x 12 x 15 (multiplier) + 19000 + 16000). The balance amount i.e. ` 1,83,000/- (3,05,000- 1,22,000, already awarded by the learned Tribunal), shall be paid to the appellant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the same shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal, till its realisation. In view of above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above. 17.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE