ORDER Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2. None appears for the respondent No. 1. 2. The appellant suffered 40% permanent disablement in a motor vehicular accident. The said accident occurred on 13.12.1999 for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No. TR-01-1421 as owned by the respondent No. 1. Since the appellant could not avail any treatment at Agartala, he was taken to Kothari Medical Center at Kolkata for his treatment as he suffered serious injuries. He was treated in the said Kothari Medical Center from 15.12.2000 to 27.02.2000 as an indoor patient. His treatment continued even thereafter. 3. The appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation for Rs. 25,10,000/-. The learned Tribunal below after recording the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- for medical expenses and another sum of Rs.1,15,000/- for loss of income, mental agony etc. At the time of accident, the appellant was below 40 years. From the certificate dated 03.04.2002 as issued by the Special Medical Board, P/3 Department of Orthopedic, G.B. Hospital, Agartala, it appears that appellant suffered 40% permanent disability. 4. Being aggrieved by this award of Rs. 2,75,000/-, the instant appeal has been preferred for enhancement and the just award. 5. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant drawing support from Exhibit 1 series submits that the actual expenditure as available from those documents as produced before the Tribunal, comes to Rs. 1,61,605/-. He strenuously argues that the learned Tribunal below committed serious error in law while calculating the loss of income and pain. 6. I have also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2, who submits that the award as passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper as per Section 168 of the M.V. Act and it does not call for any interference. 7. On consideration of the rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that since the medical expenses get irrefutable support from the Annexure-1 series, learned Tribunal was not justified while reduced the amount and hence the appellant is entitled to get the entire medical expenses of Rs. 1,61,605/-. 7. On consideration of the rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that since the medical expenses get irrefutable support from the Annexure-1 series, learned Tribunal was not justified while reduced the amount and hence the appellant is entitled to get the entire medical expenses of Rs. 1,61,605/-. As regards the loss of income, pain and agony it would be just to take aid from the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Consistent thereto, the loss of income can be assessed in the manner as follows. From the income tax returns of 3 years, the average income of the petitioner emerges to be Rs. 4,500/- per month. Let it be rounded at Rs. 4,000/-. Keeping the per centum of the permanent disablement in view, it may be assessed that the appellant suffered 40% loss of income and as such, the monthly loss of income comes at Rs. 1,600/-. Since the age of the appellant, at the time of accident was between 35 and 40, the multiplier 16 would be the correct multiplier for calculation of loss. The loss of income thus stands at Rs. 3,07,200/-. In view of the amount as assessed for loss of income, no further amount would be added to the award for pain or agony. The total award is modified accordingly to (Rs. 3,07,200.00 + Rs. 1,61,605.00) Rs.4,68,805/- (Rupees Four lakhs sixty eight thousand eight hundred five). 8. The respondent No. 2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle as owned by the respondent No. 1 shall pay the said award with 9% interest from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 18.04.2000 within a period of two months from today. 9. With this observation and direction, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed