JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 29.3.1991 of the learned Hon'ble Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Appeal No. 184/1990. 2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant Dharmendra Kumar, filed a claim petition in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (described as Tribunal hereinafter) alleging that he was employed as a motor cleaner on the truck No. RRY 1974, owned by respondent No. 1 Chatarlal Somani. It was insured with respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. On 11.8.1989 at about 6.30 p.m., the claimant was helping the driver of the truck Chhaganlal for its halting at a convenient spot for the purposes of its unloading. As a result of rashness and negligence of the driver, the truck over ran the claimant thereby crushing his legs under its wheels. Consequently, he suffered grievous injuries and his right leg below knee had to be amputed while second and third metatarsals of right foot were fractured. 3. Hence a claim of Rs. 7,42,200/- was made against the driver, owner and Insurer of the vehicle. 4. The respondents contested the same. After completion of the enquiry the learned Member of the Tribunal, vide his judgment dated 23.7.1990 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a stipulation that in case the award money, after adjustment of amount of no fault liability, i.e., Rs. 7,500/-, was not paid within a month from the date of the award, an interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of presentation of the claim petition would be payable with certain conditions about the deposits and withdrawals of the award money, against all the respondents holding them liable severally and jointly. 5. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellant preferred the impugned appeal challenging the award mainly on the grounds of its inadequacy, non-awarding of interest and the stringent conditions about investing the award money with the Bank for unduly long period. 6. The learned Single Judge, did not find any justification for enhancement of the award money. However, allowing the appeal partly, allowed interest @12% p.a. straight away from the date of presentation of claim petition and also ordered that the Tribunal will permit the appellant to withdraw award money deposited in fixed deposits internally as per his necessities. 7. Being still aggrieved by the same judgment, this appeal has been preferred. 8. However, allowing the appeal partly, allowed interest @12% p.a. straight away from the date of presentation of claim petition and also ordered that the Tribunal will permit the appellant to withdraw award money deposited in fixed deposits internally as per his necessities. 7. Being still aggrieved by the same judgment, this appeal has been preferred. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused and considered the judgment under appeal as also the case record of the Tribunal. 9. Needless to state that there is no dispute about the place, date, time, involved vehicle as well as its driver, owner and the Insurer. Negligence of the driver is also not under challenge. 10. So also, it is not under dispute that the appellant was grievously injured in the accident which resulted in amputation of his leg below knee as a result of which, as is deposed to by the appellant and so also is borne out of Ex. 1, Ex. 2 & Ex. 3, being a Certificate of Orth opaedician issued under the provisions of R. 7 of the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976, was amputed and thus he has been permanently rendered disabled. Similarly, second and third metatarsal bones of the same foot were also fractured. However, there is no evidence about his other leg also having been injured or, any way being adversely affected. However, on consideration of Ex. 2, Ex. 5 & Ex. 3 and the ocular evidence, there is discrepancy whether the left leg or the right one was amputed but, certainly, either leg was amputed and this discrepancy has gone on record unchallenged by either side, so, for the present adjudication, the same is of no consequence. 11. Though there is no medical evidence about the actual percentage of physical disability, amputation of his leg below knee is not disputed. 12. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently challenged the findings of the Tribunal as well as of the learned Single Judge contending that the appellant, aged 20 years at the time of the accident, was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000 - and, in future, by becoming a driver, his future prospects were still brighter. He had to spend a lot of money on his treatment. He underwent a severe mental and physical agony. His future is dark. 1,000 - and, in future, by becoming a driver, his future prospects were still brighter. He had to spend a lot of money on his treatment. He underwent a severe mental and physical agony. His future is dark. He will not be able to be married. He has become hopelessly dependent upon others. Therefore, by all norms, he should have been awarded the full claim as compensation but a meagre amount has been awarded, overlooking the gravity of the case and the evidence on record. He has cited the decision rendered in Sita Ram v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 1992 ACJ 1994 (Raj.) 194 in which an award of Rs. 1,62,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 2,16,000/-. So his thrust of argument is for substantial enhancement in the award of compensation. 13. There being no cross-objections, however, the learned counsel for the respon-dent-Insurance Company has opposed the same on the grounds which weighed with the learned member of the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, holding no justification for higher amount of compensation. 14. Now, dwelling upon the controversy about inadequacy of the compensation, the appellant is alleged to be aged 20 years at the time of the accident which took place on 17.8.1988. The claim petition was filed on 3.1.1989. His age is mentioned to be 20 years. He was examined in the Tribunal on 17.1.1990 when he stated to be aged 19 years. Ex. 3, Certificate was issued on 29.4.1989 wherein his age is mentioned to be 19 years. There is no correct or better proof of age. However, the same was around 18 or 19 years. He was employed as a Khalasi and is stated to be getting Rs. 1,000/- monthly salary. The appellant and his father AW 2 Bherulal, relying on Ex. 2 so called certificate issued by respondent Chattar Lal to the effect that the appellant was in his employment on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/-, have deposed so but the said Chattar Lal, who is author of Ex. 3, never appeared in witness box. Ex. 3 is not a public document. Chattar Lal is apparently interested in the appellant. Ex. 3 document as such is neither proved nor it would be looked into. This is not uncommon that in such claims, petitioners usually bring forward highly exaggerated and, at times staggering one, claims. 3, never appeared in witness box. Ex. 3 is not a public document. Chattar Lal is apparently interested in the appellant. Ex. 3 document as such is neither proved nor it would be looked into. This is not uncommon that in such claims, petitioners usually bring forward highly exaggerated and, at times staggering one, claims. Looking to age, his family back-ground and the nature of job, the learned Member of the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge were not convicted about monthly salary being Rs. 1,000/- and hence, keeping in view the income of the appellant at the time of the accident and also future prospects of higher income, even if the percentage of the partial permanent disability is accepted to be 40%, as per the Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923, there being no regularity and permanency in such jobs, on and average a monthly income of Rs. 1,500/- is accepted to have accrued in case the appellant had not suffered such disability, leaving apart special-preferential jobs and other economic concessions bestowed upon them by the Government and the public enterprises, a monthly loss, from financial point of view, with a liberal view, is accepted to be of Rs. 700/, That being so, year's loss comes to Rs. 700 x 12 = 8,400/-. Keeping in view the authoritative proposition and mandate of law as laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in GM KRSTC v. Mrs. Susama & Ors., 1994 (1) ACC SC 346 a multiplier beyond 16 is impermissible in multiplying such annual loss of income. That being so, the amount of total loss of income works out to Rs. 8,400 x 16 = 1,34,000/-. 15. As regards any expenses incurred on treatment, there is absolutely no proof. Ex. 1 is the Discharge Certificate showing that he remained admitted to RNT Medical College Hospital, Udaipur from 12.10.1988 to 17.10.1988, only for seven days. There is no further proof. However, since he suffered amputation and, after discharge as well, must have remained confined to bed and was required to take nourishing diet and some medicines also. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - (Rupees Six thousand) on account of diet and treatment appears to be just. Besides, he suffered partial permanent disability and passed through a great physical and mental agony and so a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as such is also allowed. This aggregates to Rs. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - (Rupees Six thousand) on account of diet and treatment appears to be just. Besides, he suffered partial permanent disability and passed through a great physical and mental agony and so a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as such is also allowed. This aggregates to Rs. 1,50,000/- which, having regard to the age, family status, future income prospects and, other benefits which are likely to accrue on account of his physical handicapness appears to be quite just and reasonable. 16. As regards reliance on the case of Sita Ram v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), a multiplier of 30 was allowed, whereas, as is laid down in the said case of GM, KRSRTC v. Mrs. Susama & Ors. ' case, the age of the injured being 40 years, the multiplier of more than 12 is impermissible. Therefore, from whichever angle viewed, the appellant is justifiably entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- only. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the both Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge erred on the side of allowing compensation lower than the one being allowed in this appeal and hence this appeal is worth acceptance to this extent. 17. An objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the Insurance Co., that the claimant, presently appellant, as provided under section 110-A (old) corresponding to New Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, could bring such claim either before the M.A.C.T. or the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. In the present case also, the Tribunal and so also the Appellate Courts can allow such compensation to the extent the Commissioner could have. This argument did not find favour with the Tribunal or the learned Single Judge. The Insurance Company has not challenged the First Appellate Court's findings. 18. Besides, in similar facts and circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Suresh Chand v. State of U.P. & Anr., 1995 (6) SCC 623 , in an appeal against the judgment of Allahabad High Court, in which a claim of compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- was reduced and limited to Rs. 18. Besides, in similar facts and circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Suresh Chand v. State of U.P. & Anr., 1995 (6) SCC 623 , in an appeal against the judgment of Allahabad High Court, in which a claim of compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- was reduced and limited to Rs. 35,000/- on ground that the claimant (appellant in the appeal) would have secured only this amount by way of compensation if he had moved the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, disagreed and disapproved of the reasoning holding that the High Court was not right in accepting that reasoning on the facts of the case when the finding is that the accident occasioned while the road-roller was on the move and negligence was on the part of the person who drove the road- roller belonging to the respondents. In this case also, in similar facts and circumstances, a claim of Rs. 1,45,000/- was restored. 19. Therefore, we are unable to sustain this objection of the respondent- Insurance Company. 20. There is no other point pressed for consideration. 21. On the basis of fads and circumstances discussed hereinbefore, we accept this appeal in part thereby modifying the award and enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest payable @ Rs. 12% p.a. from the date of presentation of the claim, payable by the respondents severally and jointly. Amount already paid shall 'tand adjusted against the enhanced amount. The Tribunal will pass appropriate order about the scheme of payment of the enhanced amount.No order as to costsSpecial appeal. *******