JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant assailing the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli dated 19/1/2005 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in an accident involving the vehicle insured with the respondent insurance company. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant along with 3-4 persons was travelling in a hired truck with 15 goats going to sell them in the livestock at Delhi. Truck met with an accident and it has turned turtle. In the accident, appellant sustained two fractures of ⅓rd shaft of left thigh and left fore-arm. Medical Board of the Government Hospital Karauli has proved his disability to the extent of 54% besides opining that there was shortening of leg, which fact was proved by Exh.38 dated 16/8/2004 i.e. stiffness in the knee of the appellant and he would not be liable to sit across leg or squat. Tribunal was not justified in awarding any compensation. Appellant was trading in the livestock and this was his regular job. He used to earn a minimum of Rs. 5,000-6,000/- per month. He has stated that due to this injury, his one leg has been rendered disabled and he cannot walk without the support of clutches, he cannot do any work continuously and that he has not been able to visit the rural areas to collect the goats and to take them for sale to livestock market. Tribunal ought to award compensation on the basis of structured formula taking his age of 42 years at the time of accident. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has opposed the appeal and argued that Tribunal has awarded a just compensation and it does not deserve to be enhanced. 4. For the three injuries and two fractures, learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,000/- and awarded Rs. 4,000/- for remaining appellant hospitalized in the hospital for 8 days and also awarded actual medical expenses of Rs. 4531/-. This amount comes to Rs. 19,531/- and roughly comes to Rs. 20,000/-. Remaining Rs. 50,000/- awarded for 54% disability. There is no definite proof of income of the appellant. Disability certificate has not been proved in evidence by production of any medical officer or member of the medical board. 4531/-. This amount comes to Rs. 19,531/- and roughly comes to Rs. 20,000/-. Remaining Rs. 50,000/- awarded for 54% disability. There is no definite proof of income of the appellant. Disability certificate has not been proved in evidence by production of any medical officer or member of the medical board. Contention that 54% disability should be considered only for reasons that appellant is not able to sit cross leg or squat or there was any swiftness in the knee, cannot be accepted. Besides, mere writing in the disability certificate that there was shortening of leg, also cannot be accepted without examining the medical officer in evidence. Even the medical officer has not given the size of reduction of the leg and not stated as to what was extent of shortening. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the award, I find that although the medical officer was not produced in evidence but it is also true that the medical board has also opined 54% disability on account of sustaining two fractures of ⅓rd shaft of left thigh and left fore-arm and shortening of leg. Claimant himself in his evidence as AW1 has stated that due to disability, he was not able to visit the villages to collect the goats/sheeps etc. and take them to the livestock for sell and he would not be able to work as a manual labour in his agriculture field of 2 bighas. He sustained two fractures of leg and nose. His family spent Rs. 60,000-70,000/- on his treatment and this evidence of the appellant could not have been completely ignored by the Tribunal. Even if therefore the disability is not accepted to the extent of 54%, it has to be accepted to the extent of 25% in terms of the whole body as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another : 2011 (1) T.A.C. 785 (S.C.) . 6. Having held so, now the court has to examine as to what should be the accepted income of the deceased? 7. Accident is of the year 1998 in which year, the appellant asserted that he was earning Rs. 5,000-6,000/- per month. Even if Rs. 6. Having held so, now the court has to examine as to what should be the accepted income of the deceased? 7. Accident is of the year 1998 in which year, the appellant asserted that he was earning Rs. 5,000-6,000/- per month. Even if Rs. 5,000/- per month as minimum income as asserted by him is accepted to be monthly income, then also, fact remains that appellant was not a manual labour and the evidence proved that he was trading in livestock because at the time of accident took place, he was travelling in the truck to the livestock market for selling the goats. His income therefore can be accepted to Rs. 4,000/- per month and on that basis, multiplier of 14 at the age of 42 years is accepted as per judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli dated 19/1/2005 is modified in the following terms:- (a) Rs. 4000/- p.m. accepted income of injured appellant. (b) 4000x12x14x25% = 1,68,000/- (c) Award of Rs. 11,000/- for 'three injuries & two fractures', Rs. 4,000/- for 'remaining appellant hospitalized in the hospital for 8 days', Rs. 4531/- awarded for 'actual medical expenses' and Rs. 50,000/- awarded for 54% 'disability' in all Rs. 70,000/- is maintained. (d) 1,68,000/-+70,000/- = Rs. 2,38,000/-. 9. The compensation of Rs. 70,000/- is thus enhanced to Rs. 2,38,000/-. Appellant shall be entitled to interest @7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing claim petition. Record be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith. 10. Since the learned Tribunal has granted recovery rights to the respondent-insurance company, same rights would be continued and the respondent-insurance company shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner. 11. Compliance of the order shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Appeal Allowed. *******