JUDGMENT 1. - Having suffered 40% of permanent disability and yet being awarded a compensation of only Rs. 20,461/-, the appellant, Mahendra Singh, has challenged the award dated 29.6.06 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 cum Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.3.03, when the appellant was going in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ 23-T 0206, to Jhunjhunu, near the Dhundlod Bus Stand, a truck, bearing Registration No. RJ 18 - G 1636, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and collided with the jeep. Consequently, the appellant suffered serious injuries on his right hand, right elbow, right leg and his stomach and his thighs. According to the disability certificate, (Ex. 18), he has suffered 40% of permanent disability. Subsequently, the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support his case he examined himself as a witness and submitted a number of documents. Respondent No.3, the United Indian Insurance Company, neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before this court. 3. Mr. Atish Jain for Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that despite the fact that the appellant has suffered a disability of 40%, yet the learned Tribunal has not applied the formula given in item 5 of the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short). Instead, the learned Tribunal has granted a lump sum of Rs. 60,000/- for the loss suffered by the appellant due to permanent disability. According to the learned counsel at the time of the accident the appellant was 30 years old and he was engaged as a driver and was also earning from his agricultural holding. From his job as a driver, he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and from his agricultural holding he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Thus, in total, his income was Rs. 8,000/- per month. Despite the fact that the age and the Income of the appellant were proven before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal did not apply the formula stated in Item 5 of the Second Schedule of the Act. Thus, the very basis of computing the compensation is highly misplaced. 4. Thus, in total, his income was Rs. 8,000/- per month. Despite the fact that the age and the Income of the appellant were proven before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal did not apply the formula stated in Item 5 of the Second Schedule of the Act. Thus, the very basis of computing the compensation is highly misplaced. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Digvijay Mantri, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, has argued that a compensation has to be just and reasonable. A compensation of Rs. 1,21,461/- is more than just and reasonable for a permanent disability of 40%. Moreover, the appellant did not submit any evidence proving the fact that he was earning Rs. 3000/- from his agricultural holdings. Furthermore, accept for the statement of the appellant that he was working as a driver, he has not submitted any documentary proof about his working as a driver. Therefore, the learned Tribunal did not have any basis for calculating the income of the appellant at the time of the accident. Hence, it could not have implement the formula given in Item 5 of the Second Schedule of the Act. 5. This court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, has perused the impugned award, and has examined the record. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that once a formula has been prescribed by the legislature, the learned Tribunal is legally bound to adhere to and to implement the said formula. In case the Tribunal ignores the said formula, it must justify the reasons for overlooking it. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has not given a single reason for non-implementation of the formula. Like a magician, it has conjured up the figure of Rs. 60,000/- as the loss suffered by the appellant. Thus, clearly the impugned award suffers from the virus of non-application of mind. Hence, the impugned award cannot be sustained. 7. Mahendra Singh, (A.W.1), in his testimony has clearly stated that he was a driver on a jeep belonging to his brother. The said jeep was on contract with the Telecommunication Department and that he was paid Rs. 5,000/- per month by his brother as driver. He has also stated that from his agricultural holdings, he was earning about Rs. 3000/- per month. The said jeep was on contract with the Telecommunication Department and that he was paid Rs. 5,000/- per month by his brother as driver. He has also stated that from his agricultural holdings, he was earning about Rs. 3000/- per month. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he has not submitted any document about the extent of his agricultural holding. But, even in his cross-examination he has stated that he was earning Rs. 5000/- per month as a driver. Hence, his testimony with regard to his income earned as a driver has not been demolished in the cross-examination. Therefore, there is no reason for disbelieving his testimony about his income from his job as a driver. 8. According to the claim petition he was 30 years old at the time of the accident. Since both these datas were available before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal could have easily implemented the formula given in item 5 of the Second Schedule attached to the Act. Thus, the learned Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the said formula. Since the appellant was 30 years old a multiplier of 18 should be used. Hence, in order to calculate the loss of income suffered by the appellant due to permanent disability, it come out as under- 5000 x 12 x 18 = 10,80,000/ Taking 40% of the said amount comes out to be Rs. 10,80,000 x 40% = Rs. 4,32,000/-. 9. Hence, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 4,32,000/- for the loss of income suffered by him. Thus the award dated 29.6.06 is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be paid Rs. 4,32,000/- for the loss of income suffered by him. Rest of the award is confirmed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount, after deducting the amount already paid to the appellant, alongwith an Interest @ 6.25% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition i.e. 8.6.04 till the realisation to the claimants within a period of two months. The learned Tribunal Is directed to ensure that the enhanced amount of compensation Is paid to claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judamentAppeal Allowed as Above. *******