JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged the judgment and decree, dated 15.03.2008, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 170-D/XIII/2006, vide which, learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal so filed by the present appellant, upheld the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2006, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 80 of 2002, whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the suit filed by the present respondent partially by passing a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,55,400/- with costs alongwith future interest @4% per annum from the date of decree. 2. Brief Facts Necessary For The Adjudication Of The Case are that respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ''the plaintiff'') filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the present appellant on the ground that the plaintiff was an unemployed youth 25 years of age and used to help his father in grazing sheep and goats. As per the plaintiff, on 24.04.1998, plaintiff alongwith his father and brother were proceeding alongwith their cattle towards Bharmaur, District Chamba. When they reached at Village Jhir Balla, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, they had their meals there and also took some rest. During this period, defendant, who was a shop keeper at Village Jhir Balla, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, came out from his shop and started abusing the plaintiff and asked him to remove his lamb from a Tiala. Defendant also started abusing the father and brother of the plaintiff. Plaintiff requested the defendant that he would remove the lamb from the Tiala and that defendant should not abuse his father and brother. On this, defendant got enraged and went back to his shop and came out with a drat and attacked the plaintiff with the same on his left forearm. Brother of the plaintiff tried to save him, but he (brother) also was attacked by the defendant. On account of the blows so given by the defendant, plaintiff sustained grievous injury on his person and blood started oozing out from his arm. The matter was reported to the Police at Police Station, Shahpur, whereafter FIR No. 63/98 was recorded. As the plaintiff was bleeding profusely, he was taken to Shahpur Hospital, where he was examined. On account of the blows so given by the defendant, plaintiff sustained grievous injury on his person and blood started oozing out from his arm. The matter was reported to the Police at Police Station, Shahpur, whereafter FIR No. 63/98 was recorded. As the plaintiff was bleeding profusely, he was taken to Shahpur Hospital, where he was examined. The nature of injuries suffered by him were found to be serious and it was also found that the plaintiff had suffered a fracture. He was referred to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala on the same day. He remained admitted at Zonal Hospital, Dharmshala from 24.04.1998 to 11.05.1998, i.e., for a period of 18 days. Accused was convicted for commission of offences under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (1), Dharamshala vide judgment, dated 03.08.2001. According to the plaintiff, during the period when he remained under treatment, he incurred expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- towards his treatment and medicines. Further as per him, he had to take medicines even after his discharge. It was further the case of the plaintiff that he had passed higher secondary examination, was good at sports and had played sports at Zonal level, but on account of injuries suffered by him, his entire career had been spoiled as he had suffered 15% permanent disability and in fact he was crippled. On these basis, plaintiff prayed that a decree for Rs. 2,00,000/-, i.e., Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of having suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15% on his person and Rs. 50,000/- on account of necessary expenses, which the plaintiff had incurred on account of injuries, be passed in his favour and against the defendant. 3. The Suit Was Contested By The Defendant, Who Denied the academic qualification of the plaintiff or the factum of his having any agricultural land etc. Defendant denied inflicting any injury upon the person of the plaintiff with drat. He in fact denied the contents of FIR No. 63/98 and also denied the factum of his being convicted, as alleged by the plaintiff. Defendant denied the factum of plaintiff having incurred an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as expenses for treatment and medicines etc. He also denied the claim of the plaintiff of being good at sports or having suffered disability etc. 4. Defendant denied the factum of plaintiff having incurred an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as expenses for treatment and medicines etc. He also denied the claim of the plaintiff of being good at sports or having suffered disability etc. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the defendant had caused grievous hurt to the plaintiff, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as damages? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Relief. 5. On The Basis Of The Evidence Led By The Respective Parties, the issues framed were adjudicated by the learned trial Court in the following terms: "Issue No. 1: Yes, the plaintiff had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15%. Issue No. 2: Partly yes. The plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,55,400/- from the defendant i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of earning throughout life and Rs. 5400/- as expenses on treatment of the grievous injury. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No. Issue No. 5: No. Issue No. 6: Suit partly decreed to the extent of Rs. 1,55,400/-costs of suit and interest @4% P.A. from the date of decree till the amount is recovered in full as per operative part of the judgment." 6. The Suit So Filed By The Plaintiff Was Partly Decreed With costs. A decree for recovery of Rs. 1,55,400/- with costs and future interest @4% per annum was passed in favour of the plaintiff. While partly allowing the suit, it was held by the learned Trial Court that evidence on record demonstrated that grievous injuries were caused to the plaintiff by the defendant, on account of which, plaintiff remained hospitalized for 18 days. It further held that permanent disability of 15% stood proved on record. While arriving at the said conclusion, learned Trial Court took into consideration the statement of plaintiff, his brother, as also a chance witness, who had witnessed the occurrence of the incident, namely, Guzaro Devi. It further held that permanent disability of 15% stood proved on record. While arriving at the said conclusion, learned Trial Court took into consideration the statement of plaintiff, his brother, as also a chance witness, who had witnessed the occurrence of the incident, namely, Guzaro Devi. Learned Trial Court also took into consideration the statement of PW-5 Pankaj Gupta, the Medical Officer, who had examined the plaintiff, who proved the factum of plaintiff having received grievous injuries on his person. Learned Trial Court held that said Medical Officer had noted that there was incised wound on the left upper limb forearm of the plaintiff, which was caused by a sharp edged weapon. Learned Trial Court also took note of the statement of PW-6 Dr. S.M. Mehta, Asstt. Professor, Ortho, RPMGC, Dharamshala, who had proved the factum of plaintiff having been hospitalized from 24.04.1998 to 11.05.1998. Learned Trial Court also took into consideration the disability certificate Ex. PW2/G, which was issued by a duly constituted Medical Board. Learned Trial Court also observed that as far as defendant was concerned, though he deposed in the Court as DW-1, but he did not examine any other witness in his support. Learned Trial Court thereafter held that on the basis of the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, independent of the adjudication made by the learned Trial Court, wherein criminal proceedings stood initiated, the plaintiff had been able to substantiate the factum of his having suffered grievous injuries on his body, which were caused by the defendant and his having remained hospitalized on this count. Learned Trial Court thus concluded that plaintiff had proved that defendant had caused voluntary injuries on the body of the plaintiff, which had resulted into permanent injury to the extent of 15%. It further held that though plaintiff had not proved that he had spent an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment etc., but had proved on record that he remained hospitalized. On these basis, it was held by the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff was entitled for an amount of Rs. 5400/- on this count by adjudging that the plaintiff might have spent Rs. 300/- per day for the treatment of grievous injury. 50,000/- on his treatment etc., but had proved on record that he remained hospitalized. On these basis, it was held by the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff was entitled for an amount of Rs. 5400/- on this count by adjudging that the plaintiff might have spent Rs. 300/- per day for the treatment of grievous injury. Learned Trial Court further held that the age of the plaintiff at the time of accident was 21 years and taking his average age to be 60 years, the factum of earning capacity of plaintiff having been reduced to 15% less for the future years, i.e., around 39 years, the plaintiff was entitled for damages as under: "(a) minimum monthly income of the plaintiff be taken as Rs. 3000/- or say Rs. 36000/- per annum; (b) 15% disability means that per month he suffered a loss of Rs. 450/- or say Rs. 5400/- per annum; and (c) taking the life expectancy of plaintiff to be 60 years, loss suffered by him would come to Rs. 5400/- per annum (loss of income per annum Rs. 5400 x 39 multiplier =Rs. 2,10,600/-)." Thereafter, learned Trial Court held that as the plaintiff had confined his damages to Rs. 1,50,000/-, therefore, he was entitled to claim damages of Rs. 5400/- as medical expenses plus Rs. 1,50,000/-as loss of earning capacity. On these reasonings, learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Feeling aggrieved, defendant filed an appeal. Learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.03.2008, dismissed the appeal so filed, by upholding the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2006 passed by the learned Trial Court. Learned appellate Court after discussing the evidence on record, concluded that it stood demonstrated from the record, i.e., statement of the plaintiff, his brother, as also the doctors who had examined him that plaintiff had suffered serious injuries which were inflicted on his body by the defendant. It also took note of the fact that the factum of defendant having been convicted by the Criminal Court on the basis of an FIR lodged by the plaintiff stood denied by the defendant, which was contrary to records. It further held that evidence on record clearly demonstrated that the plaintiff had suffered 15% permanent disability on account of the injuries inflicted on his body by the defendant. It further held that evidence on record clearly demonstrated that the plaintiff had suffered 15% permanent disability on account of the injuries inflicted on his body by the defendant. Learned Appellate Court also held that there was no infirmity with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court that defendant had caused injuries with drat on the left upper limb forearm of the plaintiff. With regard to the amount of compensation so assessed by the learned Trial Court, it was held by the learned Appellate Court that the amount of damages granted by the learned lower Court seemed to be quite proper, just, reasonable and adequate and the same was based on strict application of legal principles and on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It further held that taking into consideration the age of the plaintiff learned lower Court took the expected age as 60 years and thereafter assessed the monthly income of the plaintiff to be Rs. 3000/- and the plaintiff was held to be in loss to the extent of Rs. 450/- per month on account of his handicap, which came to Rs. 5400/- per annum, on which a multiplier of 39 was applied to arrive at a figure of Rs. 2,10,600/-, which was confined to the amount, as prayed for by the plaintiff. As per the learned Appellate Court, findings returned by the learned lower Court while determining the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled to, were correct findings, based on proper application of legal principles. On these basis, it upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, defendant has filed this appeal. 9. The Present Appeal Was Admitted On 10.09.2008 On The following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are based on mis-reading, mis-construction and mis-appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence? 2. Whether the learned Courts below have rightly held that the appellant is entitled to pay the damages when there is no evidence on record and solely influenced by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in criminal case whereby the appellant was released on probation for a period of one year? 10. 2. Whether the learned Courts below have rightly held that the appellant is entitled to pay the damages when there is no evidence on record and solely influenced by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in criminal case whereby the appellant was released on probation for a period of one year? 10. I Have Heard The Learned Counsel For The Parties And Have also gone through the records as also the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 11. I will deal with both the substantial questions of law together. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the findings returned by both the learned Courts below to the effect that defendant voluntarily caused serious injuries to the plaintiff were perverse findings as there was no material on record placed to this effect by the plaintiff and in fact learned Courts below were persuaded solely by the findings returned by the learned Trial Court in a criminal case, which could not have been done. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the findings to this effect returned by both the learned Courts below were based on evidence placed on record by the plaintiff and not under any influence of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in the criminal case. 13. In my considered view, there is no merit in the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. I have in detail dealt with the findings returned by the learned Courts below. It is not only mentioned in the findings returned by the learned Courts below, but is also evident from the evidence on record that the plaintiff had independently substantiated the factum of his having received serious injuries on account of drat blows inflicted upon him by the defendant on the fateful day. 14. Head Constable Surjit Singh, Who Entered The Witness Box as PW-1, produced on record the copy of FIR No. 63/98, which was registered by the plaintiff against the defendant after the occurrence of the incident. Occurrence of the incident stands proved not only by the statement of the plaintiff, who entered the witness box as PW-2, but also by statement of his brother PW-3 Sh. Occurrence of the incident stands proved not only by the statement of the plaintiff, who entered the witness box as PW-2, but also by statement of his brother PW-3 Sh. Jago Ram, who was alongwith him at the time when the incident took place and the statement of PW-7 Smt. Guzaro Devi, who happened to be at the spot when the incident took place. Besides this, Dr. Subhash Kaushal entered the witness box as PW-4 and proved the disability certificate issued in favour of the plaintiff Ex. PW2/G by the competent Board. Dr. Pankaj Gupta, who had medically examined the plaintiff after the incident on 24.04.1998, also entered the witness box as PW-5 and he has proved the factum of plaintiff having received injuries on the date of incident. In addition, there is also on record statement of Dr. S.M. Mehta (PW-6), Asstt. Professor, Ortho, RPMGC, Dharamshala, who has stated before the Court that plaintiff was admitted in the said hospital with injuries on 24.04.1998 and he was discharged on 11.05.1998. In view of the said evidence on record, which has been taken into consideration by both the learned Courts below, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the learned Courts below that the appellant is liable to pay damages on account of his having inflicted injuries on the body of the plaintiff, are not based on evidence on record, but is a result of the influence of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in a criminal case. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that in its judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in the Civil Suit, said Court has expressly stated that in the present suit, the factum of defendant having caused bodily injuries to the plaintiff had to be substantiated by the plaintiff independent of the criminal proceedings. 15. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Also Argued In The alternative that even otherwise the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the compensation which has awarded by the said Courts in favour of the plaintiff is highly exaggerated as the same is not based on any evidence on record, but is based on conjectures and surmises. He further argued that by no stretch of imagination multiplier of 39 could have been applied by the learned Courts below while calculating the damages, to which the plaintiff was entitled. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there was no infirmity with the judgments passed by both the Courts below as far as the amount of compensation is concerned, because the amount so decreed was reasonable and just and the same called for no interference. 16. In My Considered View, There Is Merit In The Contention Of the learned counsel for the appellant to the extent that both the learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating that multiplier of 39 could not have been applied for assessing the damages, to which the plaintiff was entitled. At this stage, this Court is not going into this issue as to whether amount of Rs. 3000/- which was taken by both learned Courts below as the presumptive monthly salary of the plaintiff was correct or incorrect, nor the Court is going into this aspect as to whether the amount of Rs. 450/-, which was calculated by both the learned Courts below as monthly loss suffered by the plaintiff on account of 15% disability, was excessive or not, as learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that even if the said amounts are taken as they are, then also, the amount of compensation awarded is highly unreasonable, as by no stretch of imagination multiplier of 39 could have been applied. In the present case, damages have been awarded by the learned Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that on account of the injuries which were received by the plaintiff as a result of voluntary hurt caused to him by the defendant, he suffered 15% disability. In other words, the plaintiff is suffering 15% disability on account of the voluntary hurt caused to him by defendant is the genesis of the damages having been granted by the learned Trial Court to the plaintiff. Now the factum of plaintiff having received 15% disability on account of above, is not in dispute. Similarly, as already mentioned above, this Court is also not interfering with the findings returned by both the learned Court below that the annual loss which the plaintiff could be stated to have suffered on account of such physical disability is Rs. Now the factum of plaintiff having received 15% disability on account of above, is not in dispute. Similarly, as already mentioned above, this Court is also not interfering with the findings returned by both the learned Court below that the annual loss which the plaintiff could be stated to have suffered on account of such physical disability is Rs. 5400/- per month. The sole question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the multiplier of 39 applied by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is just and reasonable or the same requires interference. 17. In My Considered View, The Multiplier Of 39 Applied By The learned Trial Court is highly excessive. 18. Grant of compensation to a victim, who may suffer physical disability on account of acts of omission and commission of the other party, is provided under various laws of the land. To name a few, such provisions are there under the Workmen Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act etc. In addition, in a situation like the present one, an aggrieved party can file a suit for damages also in a Civil Court. However, the fact of the matter still remains that the principles which have to be taken into consideration by a Court of law while awarding damages or compensation have to be uniform and not arbitrary or based on conjectures and surmises. Even in the cases of death under the Motor Vehicles Act, the maximum multiplier which is being applied by the Courts is that of 18 and that too in a case where age of deceased is 21 to 25 years {See Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 )}. 19. Coming To The Facts Of This Case, The Formula Applied By The learned Trial Court while arriving at the multiplier is quite arbitrary. Learned Trial Court held that as the age of the victim at the time of accident was 21 years and if average age is to be taken as 60 years, then difference between two comes to 39 years and the same should be the multiplier. The system so adopted by the learned Trial Court to arrive at the multiplier is highly unreasonable to say the least. The system so adopted by the learned Trial Court to arrive at the multiplier is highly unreasonable to say the least. Learned Trial Court should have had undertaken the exercise of going through contemporaneous adjudications as to in such like cases what was the maximum multiplier being applied either by the Courts or by the Tribunals under various Statutes. Failure on the part of the learned Trial Court to do the same has resulted in great injustice to the appellant-defendant, as learned Trial Court has applied an extremely exhorbitant multiplier in favour of the claimant. In this view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff was 21 years of age at the time when the accident took place, in my considered view, multiplier of 18 would be reasonable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Grant of multiplier of 39 by the learned Trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be modified to 18. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 20. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2006, passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 80/02 is modified to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled to damages @Rs. 5400/- per annum multiplied by 18, i.e., Rs. 97,200/- alongwith interest and other damages as awarded by the learned Trial Court. The appeal stands disposed.