JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27.04.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the claimant/appellant to the tune of Rs. 21,010/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 05.01.2004.

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 the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends that the Ld. Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs. 8,000/- for physical and mental pain; Rs.7,000/- on account of disability and the amount granted towards medicines, transportation, attendant charges and special diet is on the lower side. He further contends:-

ii) That the Tribunal while deciding the compensation has ignored the fact that the appellant has become disabled to the extent of 7% and lost all the chances to join Military or Para-Military Forces as he was practicing for his physical test examination for recruitment to the post of Constable GD at the time of his accident.

iii) That the Tribunal has failed to apply the multiplier system while calculating the compensation.

iv) That no amount was granted towards future prospects, marriage prospects and loss of amenities of life. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the award shows that the claimant was 18 years of age as per record. Further perusal of the record shows that the claimant was preparing for his physical test examination at the time of his accident which is evident from his physical test or examination call letter (Ex.PW-5/B) of due date and he has suffered permanent disability (Ex.PW-4/A) to the extent of 7%, which renders the claimant unfit for his selection in the Military or Para Military Forces, therefore, this Court under the prevailing facts of the present case and seeing the young age of the claimant, deems it appropriate to assess the income of the claimant as Rs. 3300/- per month in accordance with the minimum wages prescribed for highly skilled worker in the State of Haryana.

ii) A perusal of the award further shows that the Ld. Tribunal has granted a meager amount of compensation for pain and suffering, transportation, special diet, attendant charges and no amount was granted for marriage prospects, future prospects and loss of amenities of life. Therefore, the award requires interference of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. 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:-

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, reasona