JUDGMENT 1. - Having lost his right leg in an accident, having been granted a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs, the appellant is still aggrieved with the compensation amount. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.1998, in the evening, at about -7.15 PM while the appellant was returning back home, a mini truck, bearing registration No. RJ-14-G-8933, being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit the appellant. Consequently, the appellant's right leg had to be amputated from above the knee. Since, the appellant had suffered gravely, he filed a claim petition against the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company. In order to prove his case, the appellant examined himself and one Mr. Kanhiyalal and produced fifty-two documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs and also directed that in case the said amount is not paid to the appellant within a period of forty-five days, then he shall be entitled to the interest @12% per annum. Since, the appellant is aggrieved by the said award, he has filed this appeal. 3. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised three contentions before this Court : firstly, Note No. 5 attached with the Second Schedule, which is attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act of 1988' for short), clearly prescribes the formula which should be applied in case of permanent total disability/permanent partial disability. However, the learned Tribunal has not granted the benefit of the said formula to the appellant. Instead, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of twelve when the multiplier of eighteen should have been applied. Secondly, although the appellant had claimed in his testimony that as a driver, he was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be merely Rs. 1,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the appellant has been calculated wrongly by the learned Tribunal. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has made the payment of the interest as a conditional one. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Singh Bhati has vehemently argued that the payment of compensation is not a bonanza under the law. Considering the fact that the compensation of Rs. 3 lacs was granted to the appellant in the year 1999. The said amount is a reasonable one. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Singh Bhati has vehemently argued that the payment of compensation is not a bonanza under the law. Considering the fact that the compensation of Rs. 3 lacs was granted to the appellant in the year 1999. The said amount is a reasonable one. Secondly, the appellant neither produced the owner of the jeep, nor produced any documentary evidence to prove that, in fact, he was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier of twelve instead of eighteen. Thus, the learned counsel has supported the impugned award. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties, have perused the impugned award as well as the record, which has been placed before us. 6. Undoubtedly, the amount of compensation is not a bonanza or a lottery to be enjoyed by the claimant. But a compensation is meant to ameliorate the condition of the claimant for the injuries or death suffered by him or his family. Therefore, it is imperative that the compensation should be reasonable one. However, the term "reasonable" is a relative term. Therefore, the reasonableness of the compensation should be adjudged on the basis of the requirement of law and on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. Since, the concept of the reasonableness is a relative one, it cannot be put in a straight-jacket formula for all times to come. The law merely provides certain guidelines to be followed while calculating the compensation. In case, the learned Tribunal deviates from the guidelines, it must succinctly and cogently give reasons for such deviation. For, in case, the learned Tribunal is permitted to deviate from the requirement of law, such an action may lead to judicial chaos. 7. In the present case, the award was passed in the year 1999 meaning thereby the Schedule Second attached to the Motor Vehicles Act had already come into force. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was bound to follow Note 5 prescribed in the Schedule Second. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons for ignoring Note No. 5. Note No. 5 is as under : "5. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was bound to follow Note 5 prescribed in the Schedule Second. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons for ignoring Note No. 5. Note No. 5 is as under : "5. Disability in non-fatal accidents." The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising on the non-fatal accidents : Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty two weeks. PLUS either of the following : (a) in case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or (b) in case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) above. Injuries deemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement/Permanent partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923." According to Note No. 5 in case of permanent partial disability, such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of total permanent disability should be paid to the claimant. Furthermore, injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth to be referred to as 'Act of 1923'). 8. According to said Schedule of Act of 1923, in case the amputation is below the hip with stump not exceeding 12.70 cms. in length measured from tip of great trenchanter but not beyond middle thigh, then the percent of loss of earning capacity should be taken as 70%. Thus, law has lays down the formula which should have been followed for calculating the reasonable amount of compensation. However, the learned Tribunal has not assigned any reason for ignoring Note No. 5 of the Second Schedule of Act of 1955. Hence, this Court sees no reason, why the learned Tribunal has deviated from the said formula. Such a deviation is unsustainable in the eye of law. 9. According to the appellant himself, he was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month as a driver of the jeep, the said testimony has not been demolished in the cross-examination. Hence, this Court sees no reason, why the learned Tribunal has deviated from the said formula. Such a deviation is unsustainable in the eye of law. 9. According to the appellant himself, he was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month as a driver of the jeep, the said testimony has not been demolished in the cross-examination. In the case of Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 116 : 2001(1) TAC 649 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the testimony of the claimant has not been demolished in the cross-examination, the said testimony should be believed. But, a bare perusal of the award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has presumed that the income of the claimant was to be merely Rs. 1,000/-. However, the learned tribunal does not reveal the basis of such presumption. Such presumption is not a legal presumption which could have been drawn by the learned tribunal. Therefore, in absence of any other evidence to the contrary, this Court has no hesitation in taking the income of the appellant-claimant as Rs. 2,500/- per month. 10. Similarly, the learned tribunal has erred in granting the interest upon a condition. The payment of interest cannot be conditional. Therefore, the interest of 12% should have been paid from the date of filing of the claim petition and should not be dependent on whether the compensation amount was paid to the claimant within forty five days or not. The imposition of such a condition is legally unsustainable. 11. In the result the award dated 09.02.1999 is modified as under : (a) The amount of compensation should be paid to the appellant for the loss earning capacity of the appellant as Rs. 2,500 x 18 x 12 = Rs. 5,40,000/-x70% = 3,78,000/-. (b) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 3,78,000/- after deducting the amount already disbursed to the appellant. It is, further, directed to pay remaining enhanced amount alongwith interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 10.08.1998 till the date of realization. (c) The Insurance Company is further directed to pay 12% on the amount of compensation already paid by it to the appellant. It is, further, directed to pay remaining enhanced amount alongwith interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 10.08.1998 till the date of realization. (c) The Insurance Company is further directed to pay 12% on the amount of compensation already paid by it to the appellant. The said interest shall be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 10.08.1998 till the date of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal was actually paid. (d) The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the appellant is granted the enhanced compensation amount alongwith the interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed in part - Award modified. *******