JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 03.06.2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Trihunal. Chamoli (hereinafter referred to as the Trihunal) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 15 of 2003 Trilok Singh v. Smt. Rekha Badwal and others by which the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal arc that on 01.12.2002. the claimant was waiting for vehicle on road side at Talla Nagwad (Gopeshwar) to go to home. At the same time at about 2 p.m. all of a sudden a vehicle (Truck No. U.A.-07-C-9883), which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver Opp. Party No. 1 hit Sri Trilok Singh (here in- after referred to as claimant). The claimant became unconscious and suffered a fracture. On account of aforesaid injuries he had to remain admitted in District Hospital Gopeshwar and his right leg was amputated from above the knee. He has become 80% handicapped. It has been staled by the claimant that he has to spend about Rs. 50.000/- on his treatment. 3. The claimant has submitted that he used-to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month from the business. 4. Respondent No. I Smt. Rekha Badwal the owner of the offending vehicle has contested the case by filing a written statement. She has stated that the driver or the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle cautiously and at a moderate speed and the vehicle in question was insured with the United India Assurance Company Ltd. Rampur. 5. Respondent No.2 Sri Brij Mohan Singh did not contest the case by filing any written statement. 6. Respondent No.3 the Insurance Company has also contested the case by filing a written statement. It has been stated that the vehicle was being driven in cotravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed as many as four issues. which are as follows: 1. Whether the claimant got injured in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Truck No: U.A. 07-C-9884 on 1.12.2002 at about 2 p.m. at Talla Nagwad. If so, its effect ? 2. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed as many as four issues. which are as follows: 1. Whether the claimant got injured in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Truck No: U.A. 07-C-9884 on 1.12.2002 at about 2 p.m. at Talla Nagwad. If so, its effect ? 2. Whether the accident is caused due to the negligence of the claimant himself as alleged in para no. 17 of the written statement by opposite party no. 1. If so, its effect ? 3. Whether at the time of accident the vehicle was driving in contravention of conditions of insurance. If so, its effect ? 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to get the compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom ? 8. With regard to the Issues No.1 and 2. the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving, by the truck driver and claimant was not responsible for the accident. 9. Issue no. 3 was decided in favour of the claimant that registration and permit of the vehicle was also valid at the relevant time and there was no violation of any term or condition of Insurance Policy. " - 10. It is pleaded by the claimant that he is 45 years of age and has become 80% disabled and he has three sons and wife in the family. The Claims Tribunal therefore, has awarded a compensation to the extent of Rs. 2.20,000/-. The compensation is based on the statement of the parties. However, the respondent no. 3 has filed an opinion of Orthopedic Surgeon i.e. Paper No. 37-C, where the cost of the treatment of such injury is calculated to Rs. 15.000-20.000. The doctor was also examined, who has proved the injury to the extent of 80% in the body of the appellant. The compensation awarded is Rs. 2.20.000/-. 11. In the case of Pallawan Transport Corporation Ltd. V.M. Jagannathan 2002 (9)) SCC Page 728. the Apex Court while taking into consideration 80% injury has come to the conclusion. "On overall consideration we do not find it to be a fit case to interfere even on the grant of compensation. This is a case where the claimant has lost his one leg with 85% disability, with the possibility of cent-per-cent loss. In view of this such person's life is completely changed. "On overall consideration we do not find it to be a fit case to interfere even on the grant of compensation. This is a case where the claimant has lost his one leg with 85% disability, with the possibility of cent-per-cent loss. In view of this such person's life is completely changed. He is a new man, he has to live a new life. start a new venture hence we do not find any error in the impugned order to interfere with it. Hence for the-said reasons, we decline to interfere with it. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs." 12. The disability which has been treated as 80% shall he called as 100%. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it being a case of 80% disability, it will amount to non-working capacity of the appellant, thus the finding has become final. 14. The appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. 15. We have perused the statement of Trilok Singh, who has stated that he has spent Rs. 20.000/- towards his medical expenses. The claimant has stated that he was earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month. 16. In view of the judgment in Stale of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and other 2003 (7) SCC Page 484. the salary from agricultural income has been taken to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Apex Court has observed as under : "Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the High Court has gone by the probabilities and the realities of life. Even if it is accepted that there was no material to show the income from the agricultural land or dairy, a rational view can be taken about the possible income from the agricultural land, which the Tribunal did and the High Court gave its seal of approval. It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal's decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was placed before the former to prove as to what was the income. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, there was not even any material adduced to show the type of land which the deceased possessed. The matter can be approached from a different angle. The land possessed by the deceased still remains" with the claimants as his legal heirs. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, there was not even any material adduced to show the type of land which the deceased possessed. The matter can be approached from a different angle. The land possessed by the deceased still remains" with the claimants as his legal heirs. There is, however, a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after the agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered, furthermore, there was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the figure of Rs. 4500 per month. No reason has been indicated to arrive at this figure. In the light of what has been discussed above about "just compensation" the income cannot be estimated without any material to justify the estimation. In the normal course, we would have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. But considering the fact that one young person lost his life, and then-tatter was pending before the Tribunal and the High Court for some. years, we feel it appropriate to take all relevant factors into consideration and decide the matter. Gauging the relevant aspects, noted above, the monthly income is fixed at Rs. 3,000 per month, and after deducting Rs. 1000 for personal expenses, financial contribution so far as the claimants are concerned. is fixed at Rs. 2000 per month. Worked out on the basis of multiplier of 18, the compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,32,000. The amount of Rs. 2000 awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is not interfered with and thus the total compensation comes to Rs.4,34,000. The rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum as fixed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court is appropriate, and does not need any alteration. After adjusting the sum which was deposited pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.12.2001, the balance amount along with interest shall be deposited within three months from today before the Tribunal. On the deposit being made along with the amount already deposited, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs shall be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of the claimants and a sum of Rs. 50,000 shall be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of Smt Baidev Kaur, mother of the deceased. On the deposit being made along with the amount already deposited, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs shall be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of the claimants and a sum of Rs. 50,000 shall be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of Smt Baidev Kaur, mother of the deceased. They shall be entitled to draw interest on the deposit, which shall be deposited for further terms of five years. In case of urgent need, it shall be open to the claimants to move the Tribunal for release of any part of the amount in deposit. The Tribunal shall consider the request for withdrawal and shall direct withdrawal in case of an urgent need and not otherwise of such sum a should meet the need. It shall be specifically indicated to the bank where the deposits are to be made that no advance or withdrawal of any kind shall be permitted without the order of the Tribunal. It shall be open to the claimants to approach the Tribunal for violence of the order relating to deposit in a fixed deposit, if any other scheme would fetch better returns and also would provide regular and permanent income.". 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold the income of the claimant as Rs. 3,000/-per month or Rs. 36,000/- per annum. At the time of accident the age of claimant was 45 years. 18; In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, (2002) 6 S.C.C. 281, the Apex Court has observed as under : "The purpose to compensate the dependents of the victims is that they may not be suddenly deprived of the source of their maintenance and as far as possible they may be provided with the means as were available to them before the accident took place. It will be a just and fair compensation. But in cases where the amount of compensation may go much higher than the amount providing the same amenities, comforts and facilities and also the way of life, in such circumstances also it may be a case where, while applying the multiplier system, the lesser multiplier may be applied. In such cases, the amount of multiplicand becomes relevant. The intention is not to overcompensate." 19. In such cases, the amount of multiplicand becomes relevant. The intention is not to overcompensate." 19. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court, since the amount is being enhanced, therefore, we reduce the multiplier to the extent of 11 20. After applying the multiplier of 11 with the annual income of the injured as Rs. 36,000/-, the amount of compensation shall come to Rs. 3,96,000. Besides this, the claimant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses. 21. In view of the above, the appellant is awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,66,000/- along with pendenlelite and future interest @ 9% per annum. The award is modified to that extent. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.