JUDGMENT J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed against the award dated 13-01-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IIIrd FTC., Nainital (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 57/2003 Ishwari Singh Bisht alias Ishwar Singh Bisht Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & others, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 6,70,000/- as compensation alongwith the interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. The liability to pay the compensation was fixed upon the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-injured had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 12 Lac alleging therein that on 19-09-2000 at about 2:30 pm he was going on his motorcycle bearing No. UP02-D-6001 from Haldwani to Dhanachuli. When he reached near Gwalakot, a Jeep No. UP02-D-2670 coming from the opposite side rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the claimant, due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person. During the accident, he sustained multiple injuries on his leg due which the left leg of the claimant-injured was shortened by 3 inch. It was further alleged that the claimant-injured was aged about 52 years at the time of accident and he was earning Rs. 1,32,000/- per annum from the horticulture and agriculture. It was further alleged that he became permanently disabled. It was further alleged that he was the only earning member of his family and his father & mother were aged about 96 & 92 years respectively at the time of accident. Thus, the claimant-appellant had filed a claim petition for compensation. 3. The opposite parties filed their written statements and contested the case. The United Insurance Company has denied the allegations made in the claim petition due to lack of knowledge. The offending Jeep was insured with the United Insurance Co. Ltd. It was further pleaded by the United Insurance Company that the injured-motorcyclist was also responsible for the accident. Harendra Goswami, who was the owner of the offending jeep, has filed his written statement alleging therein that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist. The offending Jeep was insured with the United Insurance Co. Ltd. It was further pleaded by the United Insurance Company that the injured-motorcyclist was also responsible for the accident. Harendra Goswami, who was the owner of the offending jeep, has filed his written statement alleging therein that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., who was the insurer of the motorcycle, has also filed its written statement alleging therein that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Jeep. It was further alleged that the offending Jeep was insured with the United Insurance Company Ltd. and as such, the liability to pay the compensation if any, is of the United Insurance Company. It was further alleged that the motorcyclist was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Jeep, due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person. It was further held by the Tribunal that the motorcyclist was not rash and negligent at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal had assessed the age of the claimant as 52 years. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of income of the deceased at Rs. 25,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of "11" and the amount of compensation was assessed Rs. 2,75,000/-. Apart from this, Rs. 2,50,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- for special diet during the period for which the injured was admitted in the hospital, Rs. 1,20,000/- for the loss of earning during the period of admission in the hospital and Rs. 5,000/- for the pain and sufferings were awarded to the claimant-injured. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 6,70,000/- to the claimant injured as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. It was further held that the United Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. It was further held that the United Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant-injured (appellant) contended that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation, which is not commensurate with the quantum of damages caused to the claimant and the same is liable to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the income tax return of the claimant for the year 2001-2002 of Rs. 2 lakhs and for the year 2003-2004 of Rs. 80,000/- while calculating the compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. It was further contended that the Tribunal has erred in calculating the loss suffered by the injured-claimant after the accident at Rs. 25,000/- per annum, whereas the claimant had sufficiently proved that due to the disability he suffered a loss of Rs. 1,25,000/- per annum. It was further contended that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the amount incurred for travelling from his native place to Delhi for his medical check-up once in a month. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contention and supported the judgment of the Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence of the claimant in the claim petition. 9. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that the injured-Ishwari Singh Bisht @ Ishwar Singh Bisht sustained the injuries in the motor accident on 19-09c2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Jeep and the insurer of the Jeep was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant have, now, attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. 10. Now, we will examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 6,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence led by the claimant reveals that he became 50% disabled. He has filed two medical certificates in which it has been indicated that the injured-claimant has become 50% disabled. One medical certificate dated 03-03-2003 was issued by Dr. The evidence led by the claimant reveals that he became 50% disabled. He has filed two medical certificates in which it has been indicated that the injured-claimant has become 50% disabled. One medical certificate dated 03-03-2003 was issued by Dr. Shailendra Mishra and countersigned by the Chief Medical Superintendent, S.S.J. Bone Hospital, Haldwani, Nainital and second medical certificate dated 16-04-2003 was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital. It has been specifically mentioned in these medical certificates that the disability of the claimant-injured is about 50% (fifty percent). The claimant has further deposed before the Tribunal that there was a shortening of right leg by 3 inches. The Tribunal relying upon the disability certificates had come to the conclusion that the claimant had become disabled to the extent of 50%. The Insurance Companies (respondents) have not preferred any appeal against the said finding and as such the finding about the disability has attained the finality. 11. The claimant had pleaded that he used to earn Rs. 1,32,000/- per annum. The claimant has filed the income tax return for the year 2001-2002 of Rs. 2 lakhs and for the year 2003-2004 of Rs. 80,000/- (wrongly mentioned in the ground of appeal as 2001-02 and 2002-03). Learned counsel for the claimant tried to show that there was a loss of earning capacity of Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. It is pertinent to mention here that the income tax return for the year 2001-02 of Rs. 2 lakhs pertains to the year in which the accident occurred. It is also relevant to mention here that the claimant had not been filing any income tax return prior to the year 2001-02. It is revealed from the perusal of the said income tax return that it was filed as a new income tax return. The said return was filed by the claimant after the accident i.e. on 23-11-2001 and the accident occurred on 19-09-2000. Another income tax return relating to the year 2003-04 was filed on 31-03-2004. Learned counsel for the claimant could not demonstrate us that the claimant had been filing the income tax return prior to the year 2001-02. The claimant had stated in his claim petition that he had been earning a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- per annum from the agriculture & horticulture. Learned counsel for the claimant could not demonstrate us that the claimant had been filing the income tax return prior to the year 2001-02. The claimant had stated in his claim petition that he had been earning a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- per annum from the agriculture & horticulture. The annual income shown in the claim petition and the income shown in the income tax return are inconsistent with each other. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the claimant about his income was not of clinching nature. We do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the evidence led by the claimant about the loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the injured at Rs. 25,000/ - per annum as his own assessment. We do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal in assessing Rs. 25,000/- per annum for the loss of earning capacity of the injured. The injured was 52 years of age at the time of accident. Considering the age of the injured, the Tribunal has rightly selected the multiplier of '11'. By multiplying the annual loss of income of Rs. 25,000/- per annum with the multiplier of 11 the compensation works out to Rs. 2,75,000. We do not find any fault in the finding recorded by the Tribunal for assessing the loss of income during the life time of the claimant. 12. The claimant has filed the medical bills of Rs. 2,22,350/-. The Tribunal while awarding the medical expenses to the claimant has also considered that the claimant had to go outside his native place for treatment and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on this score. We do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the medical expenses of the claimant. 13. The Tribunal has also considered that the claimant had to go to Delhi for his medical treatment and he would have taken attendant with him and he would have taken a special diet during the period when he was admitted in the hospital. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the same and we do not find any infirmity in awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/- on this score. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the same and we do not find any infirmity in awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/- on this score. 14. The claimant has also stated that he remained admitted in the hospital for about 2 years and he could not earn anything for that period. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- in respect of loss of earning during the period when he was admitted in the hospital. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- for the pain and sufferings due to the accident. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in granting the aforesaid amount to the claimant by the Tribunal. 15. The impugned award does not require any interference. Therefore, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.