JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has challenged the award dated 24.10.2005 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has granted a compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum, for permanent disability of 37.20% suffered by the appellant in a motor accident. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.12.2002, while the appellant was going on a Motorcycle from Jaipur to the village Khijurlya, Police Station Rainwal, at about 9.00 AM, near the Yadav Krishi Farm, Govindpura, Kalwad Road, a Maruti Car, bearing registration No. RJ-14-3C- 6550, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle. Resultantly, the appellant suffered fractures in his right leg, thigh, and right hand. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned Judge granted the compensation amount as aforementioned. Still being aggrieved by the said compensation amount, the appellant has approached this Court for enhancement. 3. The main contention of Mr. Sanjay Singhal, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that despite the fact the appellant has suffered 37.20% of permanent disability, the learned Judge has not applied the formula given in Item No. 5 of the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short). Instead, the learned Judge granted a lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000/- for the disability suffered by the appellant. According to the learned counsel, once the formula has been enacted by the Legislature, the learned Court was legally bound to apply the same. 4. Orr the other hand, Mr. P.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has vehemently argued that the learned Judge has correctly granted a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for the permanent disability suffered by the appellant. Learned counsel also argued that the total compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- is more than just and reasonable. Thus, he has supported the impugned award. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned award. 6. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act. In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. 1,35,000/- is more than just and reasonable. Thus, he has supported the impugned award. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned award. 6. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act. In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even for a case filed under Section 166 of the Act, the Second Schedule attached to the Act, can be used as a guideline by the learned Court for assessing the loss suffered by the claimant. Since, the Second Schedule is to be used as a guideline, it has a legal and persuasive value. In case, the learned Court would like to differ from the Second Schedule, the learned Court should state cogent and convincing reasons for doing so. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Judge has not stated any reasons for deviating from the Second Schedule. Thus, the impugned award clearly suffers from the virus of non-application of mind. 8. Admittedly, the learned Judge had concluded that the income of the appellant was Rs. 4,000/-. At the time of accident, the appellant was twenty-five years old. Hence, it was feasible for the learned Judge to plug the necessary data into the formula given under Item No. 5 of the Second Schedule. In order to calculate the loss suffered by the appellant due to permanent disability, it can be quantified as under : Rs. (1) Medical, travelling & nutrition expenses 35,000/- (2) Physical Pain & mental agony 20,000/- (3) Loss of income 20,000/- (4) Loss of income due to permanent disability in future 3,03,552/- Total Rs. 3,78,552/- Rs. 4,000/- x 12x 17x37.20% = Rs. 3,03,552/-. Hence, the award dated 24.10.2005 is modified as under : 9. In the result the appeal is allowed and the United India Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 2 is directed to pay the enhanced remaining amount, after deducing the amount already disbursed to the appellant by the said company. The remaining compensation amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company alongwith the interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 10.04.2003, till the date of realization. 10. The remaining compensation amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company alongwith the interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 10.04.2003, till the date of realization. 10. The learned Judge is also directed to ensure that the remaining compensation amount is delivered to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.Appeal allowed. *******