JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed on behalf of the appellant claimant under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short "The Act" for enhancement of sum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chachauda, District Guna in Claim Case No. 74/2007, vide award dated 21-4-2008, whereby his claim regarding injuries sustained by him in the alleged vehicular accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs. 83,522/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 2. The fact necessary to adjudicate this appeal are that on 22-6-2006, the appellant while sitting in Minidoor, vehicle bearing Registration No. M.P. 08-T-0745 was coming to Binaganj. On way at about 10:30 pm in the night such Minidoor was dashed by Jeep bearing Registration No. M.P. 08-D-8730 driven by respondent No. 3-Kallu in a rash and negligent manner. Resultantly the appellant sustained the injuries and was taken to Civil Hospital Chachura from whereafter providing the preliminary treatment and preparing MLC report, looking to the nature of injuries, was referred to Indore for further treatment, where during the course of treatment on taking out the ex-ray, it was revealed that he sustained compound fractures of radius and ulna bone of the right hand and of the bone of right scapula and also hair line fracture on the upper part of right humerus bone. Besides these injuries, he also sustained some other injuries on different parts of his person. As per further averments, the appellant was remained under treatment for months together and during that period on three occasions he remained in the life line hospital at Indore as Indoor Patient. On receiving information of such accident, initially the FIR of such accident was registered at police station Chachaura, District Guna against some unknown jeep and its driver. After registration of the offence in the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the jeep of above mentioned number driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner had met such accident. In such premises after holding the investigation the respondent No. 3 was charge-sheeted for the alleged offence. After obtaining the certified copy of the requisite papers from the criminal case, the appellant has preferred his claim petition. In such premises after holding the investigation the respondent No. 3 was charge-sheeted for the alleged offence. After obtaining the certified copy of the requisite papers from the criminal case, the appellant has preferred his claim petition. As per further averments at the time of the accident, appellant being aged nineteen years was prosecuting the study but due to the aforesaid injuries in the accident his educational career has been destroyed, and in spite of taking the long treatment and spending the huge amount on it, he has not been cured as before and sustained 65% permanent disability in his right hand. It is also stated that the aforesaid offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No. 1, while the same was insured with respondent No. 4. With these averments, the aforesaid claim was preferred for the compensation of Rs. 15 Lac along with the interest on it. 3. In the reply of respondents Nos. 1 and 3 by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that they have unnecessarily impleaded in the claim as party in the matter and in such premises the prayer for dismissal of this claim petition is made. 4. In reply of respondent No. 4, by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that the offending vehicle was plied by respondent No. 1 to 3 contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy without having duly and effective driving licence. With these averments, the prayer for dismissal of claim petition is made. 5. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and after recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same, it was held by the tribunal that appellant sustained the alleged injuries and permanent disability in the aforesaid accident because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 3 and awarded the claim in favour of the appellant for the sum mentioned about. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of such sum the appellant has come to this Court for further enhancement 6. In the pendency of this appeal, within the prescribed period on behalf of respondent No. 4-insurer LA. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of such sum the appellant has come to this Court for further enhancement 6. In the pendency of this appeal, within the prescribed period on behalf of respondent No. 4-insurer LA. No. 13558/2009 under Order 41, Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code raising the Cross Objections for setting aside some findings of the tribunal has been filed, the same has been taken on record for adjudication, vide order dated 16-9-2009. The same is to be considered and adjudicated while deciding this appeal. According to aforesaid cross-objections, the insurer has prayed to set aside the findings of the tribunal holding due to the injuries as alleged sustained by the appellant in the impugned accident the appellant has sustained 60% permanent disability in his right hand, being given without taking into consideration the circumstance that to prove such permanent disability or it's placed certificate, no doctor or medical expert has been examined on behalf of the appellant. 7. Shri Sameer Shrivastava learned appearing counsel of the appellant after referring the pleadings, evidence lead by the parties and exhibited papers from the record of the tribunal said that in the available circumstances, the tribunal has not committed any error in holding that due to the alleged injuries the appellant has sustained 60% permanent disability in his right hand but while assessing the compensation in that regard the tribunal has not taken into consideration the existing legal position governing the field for assessing the compensation regarding the unemployed and non earning person. True it is, at the time of accident the appellant being student was not earning but in any circumstance he had future prospects, he could have earn huge sum in future, had he not sustained the alleged injury in his hand. In continuation he said that in any case by adopting the method of multiplier prescribed under the second schedule enacted under section 163-A of the Act and taking into consideration the percentage of his disability as stated and proved by him the Tribunal ought to have awarded his claim with reasonable sum near about Rs. 2,50,000/-. He also said that during the course of treatment appellant was remained in the hospital at Indore as indoor patient on three occasions in which he has spent near about Rs. 2,50,000/-. He also said that during the course of treatment appellant was remained in the hospital at Indore as indoor patient on three occasions in which he has spent near about Rs. 89,000/- for which the requisite papers, bills, receipts have also been placed on the record but some of them have been discarded by the tribunal on some technical grounds and the appellant has been awarded only Rs. 52,522/- under the head of medical expenses. This is undisputed fact that the distance of Indore, where the treatment was taken by the appellant, from Chachuara is near about 250 Kms and its one visit with private vehicle and attendant is not possible unless Rs. 3 to 4 thousand is spent, but on such head, he was awarded only Rs. 1000/-. In the other heads like special diet, attendant charges, mental and physical agony, he was awarded only Rs. 5000/- and even after holding 60% permanent disability in his hand. In such head only Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal without awarding any sum in respect of the loss of income during the period of treatment on the basis of notional income and prayed for reasonable enhancement in the sum awarded by the tribunal by allowing this appeal. 8. Responding the aforesaid arguments, Shri S. N. Gajendragadkar learned counsel for respondent No. 4-insurer said that in the lack of deposition of Doctor merely on the basis of the papers of criminal case, specially the MLC report and the x-ray report and also other papers prepared by the doctors or staff of some private hospitals of Indore or on the basis of certificate of Dr. Manoj Vaidya at Indore stating that due to alleged injuries of accident the appellant sustained 60% permanent disability in his hand, such documents could not be relied on for holding that due to such injuries, the appellant has sustained any permanent disability in his hand. In such premises he prayed for setting aside such findings of the tribunal by allowing his cross-objections. He also argued that in any case even after dismissing his cross objections in the available circumstances, the sum awarded by the tribunal being based on appreciation of the evidence in the available circumstances, is just and proper, the same does not require any interference at this stage for further enhancement and prayed for dismissal of this appeal by allowing his cross objections. 9. Having heard the counsel after perusing the record of the tribunal along with impugned award, I am of the considered view that taking into consideration the unrebutted evidence and the relevant documents filed by the appellant tribunal has not committed any error in holding that due to the aforesaid fracture sustained by the appellant in the alleged accident he had sustained permanent disability in his hand. 10. The certificate of permanent disability issued by Dr. Manoj Vaidya and the discharge papers of Life Line Hospital of Indore showing that for the treatment of the aforesaid fracture, the appellant was remained admitted in such hospital as Indoor Patient on three occasions for some days on every occasion were placed on the record of the Tribunal and also proved the same by the appellant himself but due to one reason or another best known to the appellant or his legal adviser to prove the same no doctor has been examined, but fact remains that such documents and every aspect of the claim petition have been proved by the appellant himself in his deposition and also by producing the certified copies of the papers of criminal case along with the Police report. Accordingly his un-rebutted admissible evidence in support of the claim petition is available on record. 11. After going through the entire cross-examination of the appellant carried out on behalf of respondent No. 4-Insurer, I have not found even a single circumstance in such cross-examination showing the version stated by him in his chief, proving the incident, sustaining the permanent disability due to alleged injuries in his right hand destroyed in any manner, I have also not found any circumstance showing that to destroy or demolish the aforesaid case sustaining the permanent disability by the appellant in his hand, no suggestion or the question has been placed or put forth in his cross-examination. On making some special query in this regard from the counsel for respondent No. 4, on which after going through such deposition, he fairly conceded that in this regard by putting any such suggestion or the question no cross-examination of appellant was carried out. 12. On making some special query in this regard from the counsel for respondent No. 4, on which after going through such deposition, he fairly conceded that in this regard by putting any such suggestion or the question no cross-examination of appellant was carried out. 12. It is a settled proposition of law that the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other side is a material implements in the hand of the adverse party whereby to prove his case, he can place his case by putting the suggestions or the questions in such cross-examination of the witness, if the case is not suggested in such a manner in the cross-examination of the witness of the other side then at later stage on appreciation the party who left such lacuna could not be permitted to challenge the un-rebutted and uncrossed in chief of such witness. My such approach is fully fortified with the principle laid down by the High Court of Calcutta in the matter of A. E. G. Carapiet vs. A. Y. Derderian, reported in AIR 1961 Calcutta 359 in which it was held as under: "10. The law is clear on the subject. Whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he belief that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. It is wrong to think that this is merely a technical rules of evidence. It is a rule of essential justice. It serves to prevent surprise at trial and miscarriage of justice, because it gives notice to the other side of the actual case that is going to be made when the turn of the party on whose behalf the cross-examination is being made comes to given and lead evidence by producing witnesses. It has been stated on high authority of the House of Lords that this much a counsel is bound to do when cross-examining that he must put to each of his opponent's witnesses in turn, so much of his own case as concerns that particular witness or in which that witness had any share. If he asks no question with regard to this, then he must be taken to accept the plaintiffs account in its entirety. If he asks no question with regard to this, then he must be taken to accept the plaintiffs account in its entirety. Such failure lead to miscarriage of justice, first by springing surprise upon the party when he has finished the evidence of his witnesses and when he has no further chance to meet the new case made which was never put and secondly, because such subsequent testimony has no chance of being tested and corroborated." So in the aforesaid premises it is held that the Tribunal has not committed any error or perversity in holding the appellant sustained permanent disability in his right hand due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident on the basis of the un-rebutted testimony of the appellant and the papers placed and exhibited by him only. Thus the findings of the Tribunal in this regard are hereby affirmed. 13. The appellant has come for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Tribunal. I am of the considered view that while considering the matter for enhancement this Court has a authority to consider the percentage of permanent disability of the appellant. After going through all the medical papers, discharge cards and the other circumstances of the case including certificate of Dr. Manoj Vaidya stating that appellant sustained 60% permanent disability in his right hand, I am of the considered view that such 60% permanent disability could not be treated to be the permanent disability of entire human body. Keeping in view that such disability is sustained by the appellant only in a right hand and not any other part of the person of the victim, looking to the nature of fracture and the manner in which it has been recovered, it is deemed and held that due to aforesaid injury the appellant has sustained 30% permanent disability in his entire physical body. 14. I am of the considered view that with respect of the injury whereby the victim sustained permanent disability in his physical body no fix or specific formula to assess the compensation has been prescribed under the law. 14. I am of the considered view that with respect of the injury whereby the victim sustained permanent disability in his physical body no fix or specific formula to assess the compensation has been prescribed under the law. Thus, in the available circumstances, keeping in view that the appellant being student and was non-earning member on the date of the incident for assessing the compensation, I deem fit to assess the compensation taking into consideration the notional income i.e. 15,000/- p. a. as deemed income of the victim, and also keeping in view his future prospect, I deem fit to take 50% of such existing deemed notional income in addition to the aforesaid 15,000/-. Accordingly for assessing the compensation the deemed notional income of the appellant is taken @ Rs.22,500/- p. a. 15. On taking into consideration such deemed income with future prospects of the appellant @ 22,500/- p. a. then in the view of 30% permanent disability of the appellant it's 30% come to Rs.6,750/- p. m. The same is taken up. Taking assistance of II Schedule enacted under section 163-A of the Act on adopting and applying the multiplier of 15, applicable to the age group of 19 years, total compensation come to Rs.6,750x15=1,01,250/-. Besides this in the head of treatment and medical bills, in the available circumstance, I do not want to enhance any further sum, hence the sum of Rs.52,522/- as awarded by the Tribunal is maintained and awarded to the appellant. Besides this, keeping in view the line of treatment in which the appellant was remained admitted as indoor patient in some hospital of Indore for thrice, thus taking into consideration the distance between Chachura to Indore, on the head of transportation Rs. 1,000/- appears to lower side, hence, on such head I deem fit to award Rs. 15,000/-, the same is awarded, besides this on other heads like attendant, special diet and also loss of deemed notional income for the period of the treatment, I deem fit to award Rs.15,000/-, the same is also awarded. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant is awarded for the sum of Rs. 1,83,772/-. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion by allowing this appeal in part, the sum of Rs. 83,500/- awarded by the tribunal to the appellant is awarded for the sum of Rs. 1,83,772/- as discussed above. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant is awarded for the sum of Rs. 1,83,772/-. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion by allowing this appeal in part, the sum of Rs. 83,500/- awarded by the tribunal to the appellant is awarded for the sum of Rs. 1,83,772/- as discussed above. The enhanced sum shall also follow the interest at the rate of 6% per annum, the liability to indemnify the enhanced sum is saddled jointly and severally against respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4, as held by the tribunal. Pursuant to it, I.A. No. 13558/2009, the cross objection, filed on behalf of respondent No. 4-insurer is hereby dismissed. Till the aforesaid extent, the findings of the impugned award are modified while the other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.