FAO No. 5537 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5537 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.11.2011 Dharamender Saini ....Appellant Versus Manjit Singh @ Manjeet Yadav and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the appellant Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) CM Nos. 24193-94 CII of 2010 Despite notice, no reply has been filed by the respondents. Keeping in view the averments made in the applications, delay of 14 days in refiling and 26 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. Applications stand disposed of accordingly. FAO No. 5537 of 2010 The present appeal has been filed by the injured-appellant, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 4.11.2009, on account of the injuries received by him in a FAO No. 5537 of 2010 (O&M) 2 motor vehicular accident on 11.11.2008. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant suffered multiple and grievous injuries in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 11.11.2008. He was rushed to the hospital in unconscious condition. On account of brain injuries, he twice underwent brain surgery. He further contends that the appellant is unable to work in the manner as he was doing before the accident. The age of the appellant was 24 years at the time of accident. Further contends that the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16, which his inadequate as per the Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 , wherein in the age group of 21-25 years, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied. He further contends that in view of the long period of hospitalisation and two brain surgery, awarded amount of ` 25,000/- towards 'pain and sufferings'; ` 3,71,024/- towards medical expenses; ` 10,000/- towards 'attendant', 'special diet' and 'transportation charges'; `7000/- towards loss of income, and ` 2,88,000/- as permanent disability, is not just and adequate. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the learned Tribunal has awarded the just and adequate compensation and therefore, there is no scope for any further enhancement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The perusal of the record reveals that the appellant suffered multiple and grievous injuries in the accident. As per the disability certificate, the appellant suffered head injury with mild ataxian with border FAO No. 5537 of 2010 (O&M) 3 line intellectual function thereby his mental capabilities are not the same as he possessed prior to the accident. It is also proved on record that the appellant was 24 years of age at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the multiplier of 16 is enhanced to 18 in view of Smt.Sarla Verma's case. The appellant remained bed ridden for two months and suffered a lot of pain on account of the injuries received by him. He underwent brain surgery twice. Therefore, the amount awarded under the head 'pain and sufferings' and other 'conventional heads' being on the lower side, is further enhanced to `10,000/- i.e. ` 25,000 + ` 10,000= ` 35,000/-. Accordingly, the total enhanced compensation comes to `46,000/-. The break up of which is as under:- (a) Annual loss as per enhanced multiplier: (18000 (annual income) x 18 (multiplier) = ` 3,24,000-2,88,000) ` 36,000/- (b) enhancement under conventional heads ` 10,000/- ------------------------ total ` 46,000/- ------------------------ The enhanced amount i.e. ` 46,000/- shall be paid to the appellant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this 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. 14.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE