ORDER 1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 111/04. 2. By the aforesaid award for the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant, a sum of Rs. 6,39,500/- has been awarded. Inter alia contending that the aforesaid award is very much on the lower side, this appeal for enhancement has been filed. Facts not in dispute are that claimant was working as a first driver in truck No. UP 78/T-5499, he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and on the date of accident the said truck was going from Bhadora to Myana. At the relevant time the truck was driven by one Rajeev Kumar respondent No.1, the truck, belonged to respondent No.2 - Kailashchand and was insured with respondent No.3. Because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver i.e. respondent No. 1, the truck before it could reach Myana lost balance and turned turtle, as a result, appellant sustained serious injuries on his spinal card. He was admitted in the hospital, where he was treated and operated upon. He has suffered permanent disability and cannot walk or move, he is completely paralyzed, claiming compensation for the permanent disability of 100% after contending that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month, claim petition was filed. The Tribunal has accepted the plea of 100% disability and after assessing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- per month and after applying multiplier of 16, compensation of Rs. 5,76,000/- is awarded. To this a further amount of Rs. 33,500/- towards medical expenses as proved from the medical bills have been added and Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering. Accordingly a total compensation of Rs. 6,39,500/- has been awarded. 3. Shri Arun Sharma, learned counsel for appellant by taking me through the statements of claimant PW-1 - Prahlad submitted that claimant had stated that his salary was Rs. 4,000/- and in spite of notice respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle did not appear and as there is no evidence in rebuttal to disbelieve the same, amount of salary at Rs. 3,000/- said to be illegal. 4,000/- and in spite of notice respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle did not appear and as there is no evidence in rebuttal to disbelieve the same, amount of salary at Rs. 3,000/- said to be illegal. Inviting my attention to the judgment referred by a Bench of this Court in the case of Deepu and others v. Bhawani Singh and others [ 2006 (2) MPWN 86 ] where salary of a truck driver who died in accident that took place in the year 2002 has been assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month, learned counsel argued that in the present case also salary of the truck driver should have been assessed in the same manner. Thereafter placing reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunderbai and another [ 1998 ACJ 970 ], Shri Arun Sharma argued that as owner of the truck has not entered the witness box and has not made any statement about the salary, the statement of the claimant should have been accepted. Thereafter placing reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Munni Bai and others v. Sardar Man Mohan Singh Hora and others [ 2003 (II) MPWN 2 = 2003 (3) MPHT 71 ] where the salary of a truck driver involved in a accident that took place on 6.4.1997 has been assessed at 3,600/- per month, Shri Arun Sharma argues that assessment of the salary in the present case is very much on the lower side, therefore, he prays for enhancement of the same. He further points out that in the present case appellant 1 s completely paralyzed and he cannot have a married normal life, therefore, he is entitled to certain amount due to loss of marriage possibility. Placing reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeva Shetty and another [2003 ACJ 1775], Shri Arun Sharma argues that in this case for loss of marriage possibility a sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been awarded by the apex Court. Accordingly, on these grounds, he prays for enhancement of the compensation. 4. 75,000/- has been awarded by the apex Court. Accordingly, on these grounds, he prays for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Refuting the aforesaid and by filing a cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submits that in this case also the compensation awarded is reasonable and no case for enhancement is made out. In the cross objections it is stated even when the permanent disability is established, 1/3rd towards self expenses should have been deducted and cross objections be allowed, in this regard reliance is placed on a judgment rendered in a case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and another [2005 (2) TAC 297]. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records. From the records it is clear that claimant was first driver of the truck in question which met with a accident, he is 37 years of old and is now paralyzed completely. The statement of doctor Samir Gupta who has examined the claimant and medical certificate Pill issued indicates that claimant is completely paralyzed and records also show that the claimant was brought in a strature to the Court for giving evidence and he gave his statement in the Court by laying down on floor in the strature. Considering all these aspects learned Tribunal has granted compensation by assessing the salary of claimant at Rs. 3,000/- per month even though the claimant have categorically stated that his salary is Rs. 4,000/- per month. Except for some suggestion made in cross examination by the Insurance Company to the effect that the salary of the appellant was not Rs. 4,000/- per month but was Rs. 1,500/- per month, there is no material to rebuttal the same. In the case of Smt. Deepo and others (supra), this Court in the year 2003 has assessed the salary of a truck driver at Rs. 4,000/- per month and has awarded the compensation. Similarly salary of a truck driver has been assessed at Rs. 3,600/- per month by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Munni Bai and others (supra) wherein accident took place on 6.4.1997. 6. In view of this, I am of the considered view that there is no evidence to disbelieve the fact that the salary of the claimant was Rs. 4,000/- per month. 3,600/- per month by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Munni Bai and others (supra) wherein accident took place on 6.4.1997. 6. In view of this, I am of the considered view that there is no evidence to disbelieve the fact that the salary of the claimant was Rs. 4,000/- per month. Considering the circumstances that came on record and keeping in view that salary assessed of a truck driver by the Division Benches in the cases referred to hereinabove, it has been held that the salary of the appellant in the present case is also Rs. 4,000/- per month and compensation has to be assessed accordingly. 7. As far as the loss of marriage possibility is concerned, records indicates that appellant is completely paralyzed and is bed ridden for the entire life. That being so, some reasonable amount is granted for loss of marriage prospects. In the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra), Supreme Court has granted a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on this count. In the said case before the Supreme Court, the claimant - Mahadev Shetty was a mason by profession and was injured in an accident that took place in the year 1995 and he was shown to be earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Considering these facts Supreme Court had granted a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of loss of marriage possibility. Considering the same a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is awarded on this head to the claimant also in the present case. 8. Even though Shri Arun Sharma argued that the amount of Rs. 33,500/granted towards medical expenses is very much on the lower side. By filing his Bank pass book and certificate Ex. P-13 claimant has tried to show that he has withdrawn Rs. 1,77,000/- from Bank for further treatment after the accident, doctor has issued Ex. P-13 regarding payment of Rs. 25,000/- but there is no proof that the sum of Rs. 1,77,000/- has been spent on medical treatments. That being so, as bills of medical treatment are only to the tune of Rs. 33,500/-, I see no reason to award any further compensation on this head. Accordingly, the claim made for enhancement of compensation on medical treatment is rejected. 9. As far as the cross objections filed are concerned, even though in the case of New India Assurance Co. 33,500/-, I see no reason to award any further compensation on this head. Accordingly, the claim made for enhancement of compensation on medical treatment is rejected. 9. As far as the cross objections filed are concerned, even though in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) referred to by Shri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent, in para 5 it is seen that 1/3 has been deducted for self expenses but the Supreme Court in this case has held that this depends on circumstances of each case. That being so, it cannot be said that in the said judgment the1egal principles as canvassed by Shri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for Insurance Company is laid down. On the contrary note number 5 to the II Schedule of Motor Vehicle Act which prescribes the formula for calculating the compensation in case of disability, indicated the manner in which compensation is to be calculated and there is no deduction of 1/3 towards self expenses under this note. As this is a case of fatal accident, Tribunal has correctly calculated the compensation and see no reason to further deduct 1/3 towards self expenses. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation as indicated here in under is awarded. This appeal is allowed in the followings terms: 4,000 x 12 x 16 = 7,68,000 + 75,000/- for loss of marriage possibility = 8,43,000/-. To this a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and· suffering and Rs. 33,500/- towards medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal is to be added, accordingly the compensation works out to Rs. 9,06,500/-. 10. The appeal is allowed. The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 6,39,500/- to Rs. 9,06,500/-. The enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 2,67,000/(Rupees two lac sixty seven thousand only) shall be paid by the Insurance Company along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till payment. 11. The appeal stands allowed and disposed without any order so as to cost.