JUDGMENT Mr. Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral):- This appeal is of the year 2007. The record of the case was burnt in thefire which had taken place in the High Court premises on 30.01.2011. Thereafter,the record has been reconstructed. Notice was issued to the respondents and as peroffice report, the respondents have been served. However, none has put inappearance even though the case has been called twice. I, thus, proceed to decidethis appeal in the absence of learned counsel for the parties. 2. On 18.10.2004, the appellant-Jagmeet Singh was riding his bicycle tovillage Bullana from his village Dukhara. On reaching near Swastika Feeds,Bullana, he was hit from behind by a Tata Sumo No. HR-01L-4948. The accidentwas witnessed by his father Kaka Singh, Naib Singh and some other persons. Hewas taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala and then he was referred to Govt. MedicalCollege & Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh. He remained admitted there till6.11.2004 and thereafter received treatment as an outdoor patient. In the accident,the appellant suffered injuries to his brain. A claim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act;) was filed and theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’)granted compensation of Rs.52,000/-. Aggrieved by this award, the present appealhas been filed. 3. The appellant was about 16 years of age on the date of the accident andwas a student of Class VIII. Disability certificate Ex. PA, has been produced onrecord which has been proved by Dr. K.S. Rana, Psychiatrist, General Hospital,Ambala City, as PW-1. According to this certificate, the appellant has suffered 65%permanent mental incapacity/disability. His I.Q. has been reduced to 45 to 50. Dr.Gori Joshi from Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh hasappeared as PW-2 and has produced the treatment record as Ex. PB. She has statedthat the appellant had sustained head injury and was unconcious when he wasadmitted on 19.10.2004. The accident itself has been proved by Kaka Singh PW-4,who is an eye-witness. According to his statement the appellant can not walkproperly and is unable to do other household work. The medical bills Ex. P1 to P62have also been produced on record which amount to total of Rs.27,682/-. 4. Since the claim petition is under Section 163-A of the Act, the SecondSchedule to the Act is to be referred for determination of compensation. According to his statement the appellant can not walkproperly and is unable to do other household work. The medical bills Ex. P1 to P62have also been produced on record which amount to total of Rs.27,682/-. 4. Since the claim petition is under Section 163-A of the Act, the SecondSchedule to the Act is to be referred for determination of compensation. Theappellant was a student and, therefore, his annual income has to be assessed asRs.15,000/- p.a. A multiplier of ‘16’ has to be applied since the appellant was about16 years of age on the date of the accident. Thus, the annual loss of income in thecase of the appellant according to the Chart given in the Second Schedule would beRs.2,85,000/-. Since the permanent disability suffered by him is 65%, thecompensation payable would be 65% of Rs.2,85,000/- which is equal to Rs.1,85,250/-The amount of medical expenses of Rs.27,682/- should be added to the said figure,however, since the present claim is under Section 163-A of the Act, only a sum ofRs.15,000/- is payable for medical treatment. A further sum of Rs.5,000/- is payablefor pain and suffering. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.2,32,932/- is payable. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The enhanced compensationwould be payable alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of claimpetition till the date of payment. The Insurance Company–respondent No. 3, isdirected to make payment within a period of three months, from the date of receiptof a certified copy of this judgment.