ORDER : Time taken for disposal of the claim petition Time taken for disposal of appeal by the High Court Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court 7 years 3 months 14 years Excluding application for review and recall 11 months 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd August 2023, passed in CM-4724-CII-2023 in CM-9737-CII-2019 in RA-CR-1-2019 in FAO-3653-2002 (O&M), by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Primarily, the order impugned before the High Court was dated 9th April 2002 passed in MACT Case No. 8 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 1st January 1993, the claimant-appellant, then aged 27 and employed as a Sepoy in the Army, was proceeding towards the bank on his bicycle, when the offending vehicle bearing registration number HR-01-A-9247, driven by Kartar Chand, Respondent No.1 herein struck and dragged him for a considerable distance. Consequently, the claimant-appellant suffered serious head injuries and multiple fractures in his left foot. He underwent treatment at the Military Hospital, Chandimandir, where a rod was inserted in his left foot and his jaw was repaired with metal wires. He was later admitted again for further treatment of his left leg in the Military Hospital. On account of the injuries suffered, the claimant-appellant sustained permanent disability, and was unable to either carry any weight on his head or walk without the support of a stick. 4. An application seeking compensation was filed before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded an amount of only Rs.90,000/- vide Award dated 9th April 2002 along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the claim petition, for the claimant-appellant had failed to prove any loss of income as a result of the accident. The medical treatment of the Claimant-Appellant was free, and he had failed to produce any bills for private treatment. Hence, the Tribunal granted the amount payable to the claimant as Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings; Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and Rs.30,000/-towards loss of enjoyment of amenities. 5. Being aggrieved thereof, the claimant-appellant filed an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Hence, the Tribunal granted the amount payable to the claimant as Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings; Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and Rs.30,000/-towards loss of enjoyment of amenities. 5. Being aggrieved thereof, the claimant-appellant filed an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. The High Court, vide the Order dated 5th July 2016, enhanced the total amount of compensation payable as Rs.6,63,000/-, by adding a sum of Rs.5,73,000/. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in not granting loss of income on account of injury for the testimony of PW1, established that he stood discharged from the army in the year 2002 due to being placed in the lower medical category. The High Court applied a multiplier of 16 to the Claimant's income and awarded an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000 respectively towards the heads of pain & suffering and loss of enjoyment of amenities. 7. The claimant-appellant sought a review of the said judgment, with an application for condonation of delay in 859 days, which stood dismissed by the High Court. He further preferred a recall application, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order herein. Hence, the claimant-appellant is now before us. 8. The significant point of challenge being that the compensation awarded is inadequate warranting interference, in accordance with the law. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. We are inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court, for the multiplier applied is not in accordance with law. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , this Court, following the exposition of law laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , had clarified that the appropriate multiplier for a person between the ages of 26 - 30 would be 17. The claimant-appellant as on the date of the incident was aged 27 years. 11. The compensation payable to the claimant-appellant, in accordance with law is, therefore, recalculated as follows: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income Rs.5,500/- - Yearly Income Rs.66,000/- Future Prospects (50%) 66,000/- + 33,000/- = Rs.99,000/- National Insurance Co. The claimant-appellant as on the date of the incident was aged 27 years. 11. The compensation payable to the claimant-appellant, in accordance with law is, therefore, recalculated as follows: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income Rs.5,500/- - Yearly Income Rs.66,000/- Future Prospects (50%) 66,000/- + 33,000/- = Rs.99,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 42 and 59 Multiplier (17) 99,000/- x 17 = Rs.16,83,000/- Permanent Disability (40%) 40% of 16,83,000/- = Rs.6,73,200/- Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar And Another (2011) 1 SCC 342, Para 20 Loss of Income/Future Earnings due to Disability Rs.6,73,200/- Special Diet & Transportation Rs.50,000/- Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 Para 89 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/- K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14 Loss of Amenities and Comfort Rs.50,000/- Mohd. Sabeer v. UPSRTC 2022 SCC Online SC 1701 Para 25 and 26 TOTAL Rs.8,73,200/- Thus, the difference in compensation payable to the claimant-Appellant is as under: MACT High Court This Court Rs.90,000/- Rs.6,63,000/- Rs.8,73,200/- 12. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned Award dated 9th April 2002 passed in MACT Case No.8 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, as modified by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide order dated 5th July 2016 in FAO No.3653 of 2002 (O&M) stands modified accordingly. Interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 7%, is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 19th January, 1995 till the date of payment. However, the period of delay of 859 days in filing the review petition before the High Court, be excluded for computation of interest. 13. The amount be directly remitted into the bank account of the claimant-appellant. The particulars of the bank account be immediately supplied by the learned counsel for the appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent. The amount be remitted positively within a period of four weeks, thereafter. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.