JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Madhusudan Kalavatiya, has challenged the award dated 29.3.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 9,06,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 7.9.2001. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 3.5.2001 the appellant was traveling in a bus, bearing registration No. RJ01-P-1086, from Khandela (Sikar) to Jaipur. Around 7:30 P.M. when the bus reached near the Manhar Hotel, suddenly a Video Coach bus, bearing registration No. RJ23-P-1477, being driven rashly and negligently, came and collided with the bus in which the appellant was traveling. The appellant at the relevant time was sitting next to a window. Due to the impact, his hand was amputated. Subsequently, he filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate his case he examined two witnesses, and submitted 145 documents. In turn, the 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 for enhancement. 3. Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, the learned counsel for appellant, has contended that according to the second schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, ⅓rd of the income can be deducted as the amount that the deceased would have spent upon himself only in case of fatal accident. However, the present case is of permanent disability. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in deducting ⅓rd of the income of the appellant as the amount he would have spent upon himself. Therefore, the very basis of assessing the loss of dependency is misplaced. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that even in the case of an injury the Tribunal can deduct ⅓rd as the amount that the injured would have spent upon himself. Therefore, she has supported the impugned award. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. A bare perusal of the second schedule attached to the Act clearly reveals that the Second Schedule contains a note. Therefore, she has supported the impugned award. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. A bare perusal of the second schedule attached to the Act clearly reveals that the Second Schedule contains a note. The note reads as under:- "The amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by ⅓rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive." Thus, according to the note, ⅓rd of the salary amount is to be deducted only in case of fatal accidents. Moreover, a bare perusal of item No. 5 of the Second Schedule clearly reveals that there is no direction given by the Legislature that in case of permanent total disability, or in case of permanent partial disability, ⅓rd of the income should be deducted as the amount that the injured would have spent upon himself. Therefore, the deduction of ⅓rd amount from the salary of the appellant is legally unjustified. For the learned Tribunal has failed to observe the mandate of the law. 7. According to the appellant he had claimed that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by tutoring children and by working on computers. In order to buttress this contention the appellant had submitted certain certificates issued by M.A. (Previous) Public Administration, as well as by Maharshi Computer Centre, Vidyadhar Nagar (Exhibits 143 and 145 respectively). According to Exhibit 145 he was earning Rs. 4,000/- as a Computer Teacher. However, the learned Tribunal has calculated his income as Rs. 3,000/. As according to the Tribunal the appellant did not produce any certificate or evidence to show that he was trained in computers. But the learned Tribunal has added Rs. 3,000/- as the future prospect of increase in his salary. Having arrived at this figure, the learned Tribunal deducted ⅓rd from the salary of Rs. 6,000/- and assessed his income as Rs. 4,000/- per month. But as mentioned above, the Tribunal was unjustified in deducting ⅓rd from the salary of Rs. 6,000/- as the present case is not a case of fatal accident. 8. Therefore, the award dated 29.3.2006 is modified to the limited extent that the appellant's loss of dependency should be calculated as under : Rs. 6000 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 12,24,000/- Thus he is entitled to Rs. 12,24,000/-. 6,000/- as the present case is not a case of fatal accident. 8. Therefore, the award dated 29.3.2006 is modified to the limited extent that the appellant's loss of dependency should be calculated as under : Rs. 6000 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 12,24,000/- Thus he is entitled to Rs. 12,24,000/-. Taking 70% of this amount, the appellant would become entitled to Rs. 8,56,800/-. Deducting Rs. 6,00,000/-, awarded by the learned Tribunal vide impugned award under the head of "loss of income", the appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 2,56,800/-. The said amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of two months, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 7.9.2001. The other classification for which the appellant has been compensated by the learned Tribunal shall remain untouched. 9. The appeal is partly allowed.Appeal partly allowed. *******