Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-It is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation granted vide award dated 12.07.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Jaipur City (“Tribunal”) in MACT Case No. 2393/1999. 2. Claimant, aged 24 years, met with an accident on 11.09.1999 at about 10.40 when he alongwith Gajendra Pratap Singh was going on motorbike from Murlipura towards Polo Victory and reached just ahead Tagore School, near Gayatri Restaurant, Collectorate Circle, Jaipur, where offending Jeep No. RJ-32/P/0164 came from opposite side with high speed and being driven rashly and negligently by its driver (respondent No. 1) collided with the motorbike resulting into causing serious injuries on his person. As alleged in claim petition, he remained in hospital for medical treatment of the injuries for seven months. As per disability certificate (Exhibit. 1) issued by Medical Board, he sustained 22.16% permanent disability, fracture on lower end of radius with restriction of wrist movements with 17.75% permanent disability in right upper limb; fracture of leg bones with restriction of ankle movements and deformity in functional position with 5.40% permanent disability in left lower limb. It was also opined that inured will have difficulty in doing activities of daily living with right upper limb and squatting. It was the case of claimant that he was serving as Engineer in Siemens (P) Ltd. And drawing monthly salary of Rs. 12,261.75p as per computerised salary slip (Exhibit 10). 3. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal, hence ex parte proceedings were ordered. The Tribunal did not place reliance on salary slip (Exhibit 10) on the premises that no one from Siemens (P) Ltd. Company has appeared to prove it in support of claim of the claimant. However, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income as Rs. 5,000/-, and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/-(Rs. 60,000/-for physical and mental agony and permanent disability, Rs. 30,000/-towards loss of enjoyment of life, Rs. 5,000/-towards special diet and nutrition and hospital expenses, and Rs. 20,000/-towards loss of income during leave period of four months @ Rs. 5,000/-) with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of claim petition till actual payment. 4. 1,15,000/-(Rs. 60,000/-for physical and mental agony and permanent disability, Rs. 30,000/-towards loss of enjoyment of life, Rs. 5,000/-towards special diet and nutrition and hospital expenses, and Rs. 20,000/-towards loss of income during leave period of four months @ Rs. 5,000/-) with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of claim petition till actual payment. 4. Shri Sandeep Mathur, Counsel for claimants urged that the Tribunal, has failed to consider in its true perspective the grievous injuries sustained on the person of claimant as has been evident from medical report and that apart, further failed to consider guiding principle as envisaged in 2nd schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (“the Act”). 5. Shri Mathur also contended that for the leave period, claimant had hired services of an attendant, to whom he paid monthly Rs. 1,500/-but nothing has been awarded towards it. 6. On the other hand, Counsel for respondents, supported the impugned award and submitted that after taking into consideration material on record what has been awarded by the Tribunal is just and no interference in the impugned award is required to be made. 7. I have considered rival contentions and with their assistance examined the record. Claimant has been working in Siemens (P) Ltd. Company and in order to prove his income, salary slip (Exhibit 10) has been placed on record, which ordinarily has to be believed unless contrary evidence comes on record -a perusal whereof show that it mentions about certain allowances paid to claimant for personal affairs. In his statement, claimant (Aw 1) deposed that he has been working on the same post with same salary which he was drawing prior to the accident. Looking to total salary shown in salary slip (Exhibit 10), after deducting personal allowances, his salary comes to more than Rs. 7,500/-which in my opinion was required to be considered as monthly salary for the purposes of computation of compensation. 8. Apex Court in Abati Bezbaruah vs. Dy. Dir. Gen. Geological Survey of India, AIR 2003 SC 1817 held that provisions contained in 2nd Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) have proved to be a guidelines so far as the cases covered under the said Schedule are concerned and in Para 11, the Apex Court observed as under: “11. Dir. Gen. Geological Survey of India, AIR 2003 SC 1817 held that provisions contained in 2nd Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) have proved to be a guidelines so far as the cases covered under the said Schedule are concerned and in Para 11, the Apex Court observed as under: “11. It is now settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under the second schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guide lines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof . Deviation of the structured formula, however, as has been held by this Court, may be resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of each case.” 9. Placing reliance upon decision (Supra), this Court (SB) in Harminder Singh vs. Gopal (CMA No. 304/1991) has made 2nd Schedule to the Act applicable vide Judgment dated 012.2004, which has been affirmed by Division Bench in Special Appeal (Civil) No. 09/2005 filed by Insurance Company vide Judgment dated 01.02.2005. 10. Thus, applying guide lines as provided in 2nd Schedule to the Act in the light of principles laid down by Apex Court in the decision (Supra), in the present case, I find that as per disability certificate (Exhibit 1), claimant has suffered total disability of 22.16% and looking to 24 years age of injured (claimant), as per 2nd Schedule of the Act, multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus monthly loss as a result of 22.16% permanent disability comes to Rs. 1,662/-(which is 22.16% of monthly salary assessed by this Court at Rs. 7,500/-) and after application of multiplier of 17 to it, total loss of income comes to Rs. 3,39,048/-(1662x12x17). 11. So far as finding recorded by Tribunal with respect to leave period of claimant is concerned, in my considered opinion, nothing has been said by claimant in his statement about total period which he has consumed for leave on account of his accidental illness, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered leave period for four months. However, once the salary has been revised to Rs. 7,500/-as observed (Supra), compensation under this head is revised to Rs. 30,000/-(Rs. 7,500/x4). 12. However, once the salary has been revised to Rs. 7,500/-as observed (Supra), compensation under this head is revised to Rs. 30,000/-(Rs. 7,500/x4). 12. As regards, compensation under other heads of loss of enjoyment of life and diet and nutrition, nothing has been pointed out by Counsel for appellant to make out a case for enhancement thereunder and similarly, no concrete evidence and material has been brought on record to prove the claim for employing an attendant during accidental sickness. Hence, I donot find any error apparent on the face of record to disturb finding recorded under these heads. Hence, no interference is called for by this Court on this count. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion, claimant is entitled for compensation in all to the tune of Rs. 4,04,048/-(Rs. 3,39,048 + Rs. 30,000 + Rs. 30,000 + Rs. 5,000). 14. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,89,048/-(Rs. 4,04,048/-minus Rs. 1,15,000/-awarded vide impugned award), which shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft / pay order before the Tribunal within two months. 15. The Tribunal is further directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in FDR for three years in Nationalised Bank in name of claimant, who will be entitled to receive monthly interest on FDR Supra as well as full amount of FDR on its maturity. 16. It is made clear that no premature encashment shall be permitted in respect of fixed deposits, however, on an application being made to the Tribunal and it being satisfied about urgency of any need and absence of financial resources to meet any urgent financial need may permit loan or advance or premature encashment by a reasoned order. To the above extent, impugned award stands modified. No order as to costs.