JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Both these appeals are outcome of the award dated 9th August, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. for short, ‘the Tribunal’ in Claim Petition No. 13-S/2 of 2008, titled Shri Ropesh Gupta versus Shri Balwinder Singh & others, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, was granted in favour of the claimant and respondents No. 2 & 3 in the claim petition i.e. appellants in FAO No. 14 of 2012 were saddled with liability, for short ‘the impugned award’. 2. The legal heirs of driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The owner, i.e. appellant in FAO 14 of 2012, has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation and the other grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The claimant, by the medium of FAO No. 456 of 2011, has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. This judgment will determine both these appeals for the reason that the same are outcome of the one motor vehicular accident and the issue involved in these appeals is the same. Brief Facts Facts: 6. Claimant-injured Ropesh became victim of the motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by driver, namely, Balwinder Singh, while driving bus bearing registration No. HR-37A-4958, belonging to respondents No. 2 & 3 in the claim petition, rashly and negligently, near HRTC workshop, Chambaghat at Solan on 20.11.2005, at about 8.40. FIR No. 300/2005, dated 20.11.2005, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code, for short ‘IPC’ and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short ‘the Act’ was registered against the driver. 7. The claimant-injured filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 8. It is stated in the claim petition the claimant was admitted in so many hospitals and finally, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admitted for a long time, has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 80%, which has shattered his physical frame and became dependant. 9. 8. It is stated in the claim petition the claimant was admitted in so many hospitals and finally, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admitted for a long time, has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 80%, which has shattered his physical frame and became dependant. 9. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 10. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner received injuries and thereafter ailment the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1? ……OPP 1(a) Whether the petitioner has received injuries and suffered ailment which are connected with the accident in question and the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of that also? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondents as no accident took place with the vehicle of the respondent on 20.11.2005 with bus No. HR-37-A-4958? …OPR 4. Relief.” 11. The claimant-injured examined H.C. Yadav Chand (PW-1), Devender Sharma (PW-3), Naresh Kumar (PW-4), Madan Lal (PW-5), Ravi Kumar (PW-6), Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW-7), Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW-8), Sunil Garg (PW- 9) and Manjeet Thakur (PW-10). The claimant-injured also appeared himself in the witness box as PW-2. On the other hand, respondents No. 2 & 3 in the claim petition, have examined Jai Raj as RW-1, who is their employee. 12. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant-injured has proved that driver, namely, Balwinder Singh, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries. Issue No. 1. 13. I have gone through the entire record. I am of the considered view that the claimant-injured has proved by leading cogent evidence that driver had driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which the claimant injured sustained injuries. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 are upheld. 14. Before dealing with Issues No.1 (a) and 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issue No. 3. Issue No. 3. 15. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 are upheld. 14. Before dealing with Issues No.1 (a) and 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issue No. 3. Issue No. 3. 15. It was for the respondents in the claim petition to plead and prove that the claim petition was not maintainable, have not led any evidence, thus have failed to discharge the onus. However, this issue is covered by the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal has rightly decided this issue in favour of the claimant-injured and against the respondents. Issues No. 1(a) and 2 16. These issues are inter-connected, hence are taken up together for determination. 17. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in, AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Comp Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787 and Kavita versus Deepak and others, 2012 AIR SCW 4771, has clearly laid down the principles as to how compensation has to be awarded in cases where the claimants have suffered permanent disability and how the assessment is to be made. 18. I have gone through the statements of Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW-7) and Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW-8), who have stated that the claimant-injured has sustained injuries, which resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 80%, was admitted in the hospital and also remained as an outdoor patient. They have also given details of the injuries suffered by the claimant-injured and the expenses incurred. The Tribunal has recorded findings in paras-8 to 11 of the impugned award. 19. I am of the considered view that 80% permanent disability has not only affected his income, but also shattered his physical frame. 20. The Tribunal has held that the monthly salary of the claimant-injured was Rs. 10,500/- per month and he has suffered loss of earning to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month. 21. Admittedly, the age of the claimant-injured was 33 years at the time of accident. 20. The Tribunal has held that the monthly salary of the claimant-injured was Rs. 10,500/- per month and he has suffered loss of earning to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month. 21. Admittedly, the age of the claimant-injured was 33 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘15’, in view of the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in, AIR 2009 SC 3104 , upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in a case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 read with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Munna Lal Jain & another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in, 2015 AIR SCW 3105. 22. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.14,40,000/- under the head ‘loss of future income’. 23. The Apex Court in its latest decision in Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir and others, (2015) 7 SCC 252 , while discussing its earlier pronouncements, observed that in injury cases, the compensation would include not only the actual expenses incurred, but the compensation has to be assessed keeping in view the struggle which the injured has to face throughout his life due to the permanent disability and the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment, loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering to undergo for the whole life etc. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 18 of the said decision hereunder: “11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to struggle and face different challenges as being handicapped permanently. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to struggle and face different challenges as being handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to do his normal work of his job as a driver. Therefore, it is submitted that to meet the ends of justice it would be just and proper to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma caused to him and a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. …………. …………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. and considering the suffering undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.” 24. In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the judgment, supra, I am of the considered view that the claimant-injured is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.1,50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 25. The documents Ext. PW-2/B to Ext. PW-2/F, Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-108, Ext. P-109 to Ext. P-112, Ext. P- 136 to Ext. P141, Ext. P-143 to Ext. P-152 do disclose that the claimant-injured had undergone surgical intervention. 26. 1,50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.1,50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 25. The documents Ext. PW-2/B to Ext. PW-2/F, Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-108, Ext. P-109 to Ext. P-112, Ext. P- 136 to Ext. P141, Ext. P-143 to Ext. P-152 do disclose that the claimant-injured had undergone surgical intervention. 26. It appears that the Tribunal after making guess work, has rightly granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head ‘medical expenses’, is accordingly upheld. 27. The Tribunal has not granted compensation under the head ‘expenses for future treatment’. I deem it proper to grant compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘expenses for future treatment’. 28. The Tribunal has rightly awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, is accordingly upheld. 29. Accordingly, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation with 7.5 % interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, under the various heads as follows: (i) loss of future income : Rs. 14,40,000/- (ii) pain and sufferings: Rs. 1,50,000/- (iii) loss of amenities of life: Rs. 1,50,000/- (iv) medical expenses: Rs. 2,00,000/- (v) expenses for future treatment: Rs. 50,000/- Total: Rs. 19,90,000/- 30. Viewed thus, the amount of compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 31. The award amount stands deposited before the Registry. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ account cheque or by depositing the same in his account. 32. The enhanced amount be deposited within eight weeks. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimant. 33. Accordingly, FAO No. 456 of 2011 filed by the claimant-injured is allowed and FAO No. 14 of 2012 is dismissed. 34. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.