ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The present cross objection has been filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “Code”) on behalf of the appellant herein/claimant, against the impugned order and judgment dated 10th April, 2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in case bearing MACT no. 450739/2016 (hereinafter “impugned order”) seeking enhancement of the compensation with interest.

2. The relevant facts that have led to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:

a) On 16th June, 2012 at about 12:10 am, the claimant/injured namely Sh.

Harsh Mann was driving the vehicle (car) bearing no. HR-70U-0006 (“injured vehicle”) with Sh. Vikas Mann (father) sitting on the front left seat of the car. They were returning from Naya Bazar, Khari Baoli and when they reached Burari Crossing, their vehicle collided with a dumper bearing no. HR-56-7679 (hereinafter “offending vehicle”) which was standing idle/stationary in the middle of the road without any indication and the driver of the offending vehicle was not present in the vehicle. Due to the said accident, the injured sustained multiple injuries and was taken to the Trauma Centre and later shifted to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.

b) The injured claimed compensation from the driver, owner and the insurance company by filing MACT case bearing no. 450739/16.

c) In the aforementioned claim petition, the driver and the owner did not file any written statement, however, a written statement was filed by the insurance company denying the case of the claimant and admitting the insurance of the aforementioned dumper vehicle at the time of the accident.

d) The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the dumper vehicle and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 33, 71, 048/- vide the impugned order dated 10th April, 2018 in favour of the injured/claimant.

e) Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the present cross appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in passing the impugned award as it allowed only a meagre compensation under non-pecuniary heads to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of amenities of life and Rs. 50,000/- jointly for conveyance and special diet.

4. It is submitted that the claimant before the learned Tribunal was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and had passed 12th standard examination and was to seek admission in college.

5. It is further submitted that after completion of studies, the injured would have earned about Rs.25,000/- per month at least and he would have gotten married in the future and raised his own family and therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in not allowing compensation for loss of marriage prospects and for loss of enjoyment of life.

6. It is submitted that the claimant sustained severe head injury, became unconscious and started bleeding from ENT. Further, the medical investigations revealed that the appellant herein/cross objector suffered Right TP Depressed Fracture with multiple haemorrhagic contusions & diffuse cerebral edema which caused 72% neurological disability. It is also submitted that the appellant is under constant treatment and requires assistance for basic tasks and he is unable to perform his daily tasks and cannot eat, drink, defecate, move, bathe, etc by himself, thus, making him confined to his bed.

7. It is submitted that the appellant is in a vegetative condition and is totally dependent on others. Moreover, his neurological disability was assessed at 72% by the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Science and the neurological disability has rendered the appellant permanently disabled to the extent of 100%.

8. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed more compensation under the various heads such as for pain and su