Judgment Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. The present first appeal is preferred by the original claimant, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.3.1996, passed by the learned Member, M.A.C.T. Dhule, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.239 of 1990, thereby awarding lesser amount of compensation. 3. The appellant had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in M.A.C.T. Dhule. It was contended that he has lost his right hand in the motor vehicular accident, which has occurred on 5.5.1990. The appellant was travelling by a private bus from Indore to Pune. At around 12.00 in the midnight, a dash occurred between the bus and a truck. It was alleged that the accident took place due to the composite negligence on the part of the drivers of the bus and the truck. The appellant had filed petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the bus. The appellant, however, did not join the driver, owner and insurer of the Truck. An amount of Rs.11,00,000/-was claimed as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The claim, however, was restricted to Rs.7,00,000/-. 4. The learned Member of the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the composite negligence of the drivers of the truck as well as the bus. He further recorded a finding that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and absence of the driver, owner and insurer of the truck, was held to be of no consequence and therefore, the driver, owner and insurer of the bus were held liable to pay the compensation. 5. The present respondent No.3 i.e. insurer solely contested the petition. As we are concerned with the question of quantum of compensation only in the present appeal, one need not advert to other findings, as those have attained finality. 6. It was proved before the learned Tribunal that the appellant was 39 years old at the time of occurrence of the accident. He was graduate in Science faculty and was in the business of manufacturing chemicals for a period of three years, preceding the accident. He had one factory under the name and styled as Kelvin Pharmaceuticals at Indore. 6. It was proved before the learned Tribunal that the appellant was 39 years old at the time of occurrence of the accident. He was graduate in Science faculty and was in the business of manufacturing chemicals for a period of three years, preceding the accident. He had one factory under the name and styled as Kelvin Pharmaceuticals at Indore. His right hand was amputed immediately after the accident in the Cottage Hospital at Shirpur and further treatment was taken at Indore City Nursing Home. The appellant claims that he was required to sell his factory, as he was not able to run it properly after complete loss of the right hand. The activities of the factory were stopped and therefore, according to him, he lost his financial source. Further, as he could not perform well in the partnership firm, he had been terminated from the said firm w.e.f. 1.4.1992. He claims that he has become 100% disable in running the factory or carrying the partnership business of the firm viz. Fakruddin Foot Wear, Indore. He was further required to incur the expenses on the treatment. Under the circumstances, composite claim, as detailed supra, came to be filed. 7. Before the learned Member of the Tribunal, evidence in the nature of sale deed of factory at Exh.72 was produced and Income Tax Return for the assessment year 198889 filed on 1.8.1989 at Exh.62 was placed, which shows that the income of the appellant during the said assessment year was around Rs.43,000/-and odd. The medical bills, showing that an amount of Rs.11,000/-was expended, were also filed. Orthopedic surgeon Mr. Pradeep Shrivastav was examined, who has deposed that the appellant suffered disability between 75% to 90%. He, accordingly, proved the certificate issued by him at Exh.70. 8. Considering the income tax returns, the learned Tribunal found that the loss of income would be Rs.43,000/-per year. Multiplier of 16 was applied and therefore, it was opined that compensation of Rs.3,34,000/-on the loss of future income as well as present income was awardable, treating the appellant as 100% disable due to the accident. However, it was observed that the appellant could have managed the factory with the help of servants. Thereafter, the Tribunal awarded amount on account of several heads like loss of amenities, driving of vehicle, playing of games etc. However, it was observed that the appellant could have managed the factory with the help of servants. Thereafter, the Tribunal awarded amount on account of several heads like loss of amenities, driving of vehicle, playing of games etc. and suddenly expressed an "opinion" that grant of compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-on all these heads is just and proper. The learned Member has also disbelieved the version of the appellant, that due to the injuries suffered by him, he was expelled from the partnership firm, in which his real brothers were the partners. 9. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal did not award the compensation in a right spirit. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal observed that 1/3rd of the income of the appellant was required to be deducted towards his personal expenses, however, suddenly without giving the computation of compensation, a composite compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-was granted. In that view of the matter, according to him, the compensation on account of loss of actual income should be Rs.43,000/-x 16 = Rs.6,88,000/-. He further submitted that besides this, as the appellant was required to pay medical bills for Rs.11,000/-, the expenses of Rs.15,000/-towards allied charges like conveyance from Shirpur to Indore and Rs.15,000/-for attendance charges, special diet and for other expenses i.e. in all Rs.50,000/-ought to have been granted by the learned Tribunal. He further submitted that considering the fact that the appellant was 39 years old and due to the loss of his complete right hand, the compensation towards the loss of amenities, also ought to have been granted. 10. As regards the grant of interest at the rate of 6% p.a., he submitted that the observation of the learned Member that the claim petition was dragged for years together due to lapse on the part of the appellant, is factually incorrect. Therefore, according to him, considering the trend of economy at the time of filing of the petition and thereafter, grant of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. would be just and reasonable. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Therefore, according to him, considering the trend of economy at the time of filing of the petition and thereafter, grant of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. would be just and reasonable. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Usmanpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company submitted that considering the fact that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and the truck drivers, the learned trial court though at some places computed the compensation at Rs.3,00,000/-and odd, ultimately in the final order, the same was rightly brought down to Rs.1,25,000/-. He therefore, submitted that it can be inferred that the learned Tribunal was of the view that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles, though it is not expressly stated in the award. He further argued that there is nothing on record that the appellant was required to sell the factory solely due to the incapacity to run the same on account of the injuries caused due to the accident. Lastly, he submitted that since the appellant was negligent in prosecuting the claim petition before the learned Tribunal, the interest awarded at the rate of 6% p.a. needs no interference. He therefore, supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 12. On the basis of the above material, following point arises for my consideration : i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? My finding is in negative and the appeal is therefore partly allowed with proportionate costs by enhancing the compensation, for the reasons to follow. 13. The facts on record, clearly show that the appellant was 39 years old, a Science graduate with certain special skills of manufacturing of medicines. He had his own factory at Indore. After the accident, the factory was sold. His Income Tax Returns filed preceding the occurrence of the accident shows that his income was Rs.43,000/-and odd per year. It is further to be noted that the right hand of the appellant right from the shoulder was required to be amputed immediately after the accident in the Cottage Hospital at Shirpur itself and thereafter, the appellant was shifted to Indore. There is no denial that he has his own family and was active in life being 39 years old and a part time journalist. There is no denial that he has his own family and was active in life being 39 years old and a part time journalist. In the circumstances, the question before the Court would be, as to what should be the just compensation on account of pecuniary and non pecuniary losses. 14. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant relies over various authorities of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. In order to buttress his arguments, he relied over the facts in each of the cases, on the basis of which the respective Courts, arrived at a just compensation by making guess work in those cases. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the injured-25 years old-claimant was a cheese vendor, sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of left radius, making him 45% physically disable. The Tribunal assessed the functional disability as 25% and loss of future earning capacity was held as 20%. By adopting the multiplier of 18, for 20% functional disability, the compensation was arrived at Rs.64,800/-. Thereafter, by adding compensation towards expenses incurred for treatment, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-was calculated. In the case of Hemant Krishnanath Wadke Vs. Patheja Forging & Auto Parts, reported in 2004 B.C.I. 708, in first appeal decided by this court, a 26 years old man suffered compound fracture of shaft femur (right), compound fracture Tibia Fibula (right) and closed fracture tibia alongwith certain other injuries like multiple contused lacerated wound over face and head injury. His net income was proved at Rs.2000/-p.m. from business. Considering all relevant facts, it was observed that the findings of the Tribunal, the computation of 50% towards the loss of income, is not proper. 15. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel also relied on a case where a professional college student has suffered 70% permanent disability, who claimed to be a remarkably intelligent student. In yet another case, where a 12 years old girl had suffered depression on one of her legs. The skin of right leg from thigh to ankle was also peeled off. 16. There is no need to burden this judgment by giving the details of all the judgments cited by the learned counsel. In the facts and circumstances and considering the material on record, just compensation was arrived at in those cases. 17. The skin of right leg from thigh to ankle was also peeled off. 16. There is no need to burden this judgment by giving the details of all the judgments cited by the learned counsel. In the facts and circumstances and considering the material on record, just compensation was arrived at in those cases. 17. In the present case, what we find is that immediately preceding the year of the accident, the appellant was earning Rs.43,000/-per year. He was not a salaried person, but a businessman, who was running a factory and having his father and brothers in various business, out of which in some of the business, he was also a partner. The learned Member rightly disbelieved the version of the appellant that he was expelled from the partnership firm, as he was unable to carry out any active work in the partnership firm. 18. It is, thus, proved that the appellant, a 39 years old man, was running his pharmaceutical unit. He was required to sell the same immediately after amputation of his right arm. In the circumstances, the observation of the learned Tribunal that there are no recitals in the sale-deed that the appellant was required to sell the unit due to accidental injuries, cannot be sustained. 19. Since the appellant was running his own independent unit and was also a partner in the family business, out of his yearly income of Rs.43,000/-found in the preceding year, by giving certain deductions towards profit from the partnership firm, his own income can be assumed at Rs.36,000/-per year. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009 AIR SCW 4992, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable, in view of the age of the appellant. The actual loss of income due to distress sale of the property, thus, would come to Rs.36,000/-x 15 i.e. Rs.5,40,000/-. 20. The actual bills towards medical expenses, show that an amount of Rs.11,000/-was expended. In those circumstances, Rs.15,000/-towards the actual medical expenses and Rs.10,000/-towards the allied expenses like conveyance from Shirpur to Indore and thereafter visits to the Surgeon, attendance charges and special diet could be a just compensation. Thus, the amount of Rs.25,000/-on the said counts, would be a just compensation. 21. In those circumstances, Rs.15,000/-towards the actual medical expenses and Rs.10,000/-towards the allied expenses like conveyance from Shirpur to Indore and thereafter visits to the Surgeon, attendance charges and special diet could be a just compensation. Thus, the amount of Rs.25,000/-on the said counts, would be a just compensation. 21. So far as the question regarding computation of compensation on the non pecuniary heads like compensation towards pains and suffering or loss of amenities etc, this Court has to take into consideration various factors like the age of the claimant, nature of his injuries, his or her marital status and nature of his activities. In the present case, what I find is that the appellant was 39 years old, he was operating a manufacturing unit. The evidence on record shows that he was a part-time journalist and a member of Lions Club. 22. The evidence on record shows that the family of the appellant is well established in Indore. It is proved that he was a partner in one of the family business. Further his right hand was completely amputed at the age of 39 years. The amputation was carried in Cottage Hospital at Shirpur and thereafter, the post treatment was taken at Indore. Considering all these aspects on record, according to me, the compensation on account of pain and suffering in the sum of Rs.10,000/-and further compensation of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of amenities, would be a just and sufficient compensation. The total compensation on this head would come to Rs.30,000/-. 23. Mr. Usmanpurkar, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of even the claimant-injured, from his income is permissible, as is held in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Charlie and another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2157 (1). On the other hand, Mr. Bhandari, places reliance on the ratio of the judgment in the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra), wherein it has been declared that there is no need to deduct 1/3rd or any other percentage from and out of the income towards personal and living expenses of the injured-claimant. 24. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Charlie (supra), after arriving at a compensation at paragraph No.6, the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "6. 24. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Charlie (supra), after arriving at a compensation at paragraph No.6, the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "6. What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula by universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. In the instant case the claimant was nearly 39 years of age and was married. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, 1/3rd deduction has to be made for personal expenditure." As against this, in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) in paragraph No.27, the Supreme Court has observed that;- "27. In the case of an injured claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to the claimant, (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). Therefore, there is no need to deduct one third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses." 25. The reading of the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), shows that the Court assumed that certain percentage of deduction for personal expenses will have to be made and therefore, 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses was given. On the other hand, in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra), the question as to whether in a case where the injured claims compensation, any deductions are required to be made, was very much in issue and therefore, the Supreme Court has reasoned by discussing all the factors that in such a case there is no need to deduct 1/3rd or any other percentage from and out of the income. It is a fundamental principle of law of precedent that the ratio has to be extracted from the given judgment on the basis of the facts proved, arguments advanced and thereafter certain definite decision on the question is arrived at by the Court. In that view of the matter, the observations made by the Supreme Court, in the case of New India Assurance Company (supra) cannot be called as ratio for the present case. 26. In that view of the matter, the observations made by the Supreme Court, in the case of New India Assurance Company (supra) cannot be called as ratio for the present case. 26. Further, it may be noted that the case of New India Assurance Company (supra) decided in the year 2005, whereas the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) is decided in the year 2011 and therefore, the law of precedent requires that the ratio in latest judgment should be followed. In that view of the matter, there is no need to deduct anything towards personal expenditure of the injured-claimant from his future loss of income. 27. This takes me to consider the argument of Mr. Usmanpurkar, learned counsel, that it could be inferred that the learned Tribunal has deducted 50% of the compensation, as it has earlier held that the truck driver as well as the Bus driver were equally rash and negligent in driving the said vehicles. The said argument is required to be rejected at the threshold, since there is no finding to that effect by the Tribunal. Further, admittedly, it was not a case of contributory negligence but of a composite negligence, as the appellant-injured was merely travelling as a passenger by the bus. The conclusion, thus would be, that it was a case of accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of two drivers i.e. the truck driver and Bus driver. In the circumstances, each of them were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel Mr. Usmanpurkar is rejected. 28. In the above circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. 29. It is hereby declared that the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- + Rs.25,000/-+ Rs.30,000/-= Rs.5,95,000/-. As regards rate of interest, the learned Tribunal has observed that since the appellant has taken sufficient time to lead evidence, he is not entitled for enhanced rate of interest. Under the circumstances, interest at the rate of 6% p.a. was awarded. The Roznama, however, shows that the appellant cannot be blamed for the delay. The order below Exh.1 i.e. claim petition, on the other hand, shows that some chances were also granted to the learned counsel for the insurer. Under the circumstances, interest at the rate of 6% p.a. was awarded. The Roznama, however, shows that the appellant cannot be blamed for the delay. The order below Exh.1 i.e. claim petition, on the other hand, shows that some chances were also granted to the learned counsel for the insurer. It is a common knowledge that the delay in disposal of the cases is attributable to both the parties and the Court as well, though proposition in the same may vary from case to case. In that view of the matter, grant of interest at the rate of 6% p.a. was not justified. 30. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel submits that considering the economical trend prevalent at the time of filing of petition, interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the compensation amount, would be just and equitable. However, taking overall view of the matter and upon considering the prevalent rate of interest, the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the whole of the amount, under award, excluding the compensation already received by the appellant, would be just and reasonable. 31. The appeal is thus allowed with proportionate costs in the above terms.