JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.10.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali ('the Tribunal'), whereby, for the injuries suffered by the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 77,619/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e. 18.12.2001. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 12.11.2001 at about 9.45 A.M. the appellant alongwith one Narpat Singh was riding on a motor cycle from Jaitpur to Pali, when the said motor cycle met with an accident with a Truck being driven by Jalam Singh, which resulted in the appellant-claimant suffering grievous injuries. 3. The application seeking compensation was filed wherein it was claimed that claimant was aged about 30 years and was working as Caterer at Mumbai and was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month and assessing his annual income at 7 54,000/- claimed loss of income for 35 years at 18,69,000/-, for treatment, operation, medicines, transportation, attendants, doctor, etc. Rs. 1,00,000/-, for physical pain and mental agony Rs. 1,00,000/-, for special damages Rs. 2,00,000/-, special diet Rs. 30,000/-, for damages of cloths etc. Rs. 975/-, for entertainment of guests Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- for not been able to fulfill the order booked, were demanded on account of the said accident. 4. The reply to the application was filed by the respondent-lnsurance Company and the averments contained in the application were denied. The appellant also exhibited certain documents including his injury report (Exhibit-21). 5. After hearing of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Truck, which resulted in, the appellant-claimant suffering grievous injuries. 6. On the issue of award of compensation, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence led by the appellant came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 32,319/- for medical expenses, Rs. 2,800/- for conveyance expenses, Rs. 12,500/- towards loss of income for five months taking income of the appellant at Rs. 100/- per day and for 25 days in a month, and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards physical pain and mental agony and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 77,619/- as noticed above alongwith interest. 7. 2,800/- for conveyance expenses, Rs. 12,500/- towards loss of income for five months taking income of the appellant at Rs. 100/- per day and for 25 days in a month, and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards physical pain and mental agony and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 77,619/- as noticed above alongwith interest. 7. It is submitted that the appellant suffered several fractures, which is evident from Exhibit-21 and, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'), the permanent disablement is apparent. It was .further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the appellant and has committed illegality in refusing any amount under the head of future loss of income. Ultimately, it was submitted that the appellant is entitled to award of compensation as demanded in the application. 8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-lnsurance Company submitted that based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. It was submitted that in absence of any oral or documentary evidence of permanent disablement, the appellant is not entitled for grant of any compensation for loss of future income. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. From the injury report (Exhibit-21) and the X-ray report (Exhibit-22), it is apparent that the appellant has suffered 10 injuries on his body and had suffered fracture in the little finger on his right hand, fracture of upper shaft of right fibula and tibia. From the discharge ticket (Exhibit-23), it is apparent that he remained hospitalized on 12.11.2001 for two days at Pali and was taken of Ahmedabad and further treatment, where he apparently remained hospitalized till 19.11.2001 and, thereafter continued with his treatment at Pali. From the documentary evidence available on record, the fact that the appellant suffered several simple and grievous injuries cannot be disputed. The fact of his hospitalization from12.11.2001 to 19.11.2001 at Pali and Ahmedabad also cannot be disputed. 11. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation, has not awarded any sum for the period of appellant's hospitalization for 8 days to which he is entitled for compensation @ Rs. 300/- per day. Further, the Ambulance receipt indicates a payment of Rs. The fact of his hospitalization from12.11.2001 to 19.11.2001 at Pali and Ahmedabad also cannot be disputed. 11. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation, has not awarded any sum for the period of appellant's hospitalization for 8 days to which he is entitled for compensation @ Rs. 300/- per day. Further, the Ambulance receipt indicates a payment of Rs. 2,800/- from Pali to Ahmedabad, naturally, the appellant would have returned back from Ahmedabad to Pali and would have paid similar amount and, therefore, he is also entitled to a further sum of Rs. 72,800/- on the said ground. 12. Besides the above, the Tribunal has not awarded any conventional sum for the injuries suffered by the appellant and, therefore, for the 8 simple injuries claimant is awarded a sum of Rs. 78,000/- @ Rs. 71.000/- per such injury and is awarded a sum of Rs. 7,45,000/- for 3 fractures suffered by him @ Rs. 7,15,000/- per fracture of his little finger on his right hand and fracture of upper shaft of right fibula and tibia in the right leg. 13. The fact that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 7,2,500/- taking the income at 7 100/- per day for 25 days is also apparently on the lower side and the claim made by the appellant for having served at Mumbai as Caterer at Rs. 7150/- per day does not appeared to be excessive and further looking to the nature of the work in which he was involved, it cannot be said that he would be working for 25 days a month only and, therefore, for 5 months, the appellant is entitled to another sum of Rs. 7,10,000/-. 14. So far as the grant of compensation for permanent disablement, resulting in future loss of income is concerned, from the oral evidence of the appellant except for mere assertion that he is not able to undertake any work on account of injuries suffered by him, the appellant has failed to place on record any evidence either documentary by way of certificate indicating permanent disablement or by producing any Doctor in support of the said contention regarding permanent disablement. 15. 15. So far as the plea raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant based on provisions of Section 142 of the Act is concerned, Section 142 of the Act is part of Chapter-X, which deals with liability without fault in certain cases and the Section 142 is prefaced with the phrase 'for the purpose of this Chapter', meaning thereby, the said provision of Section 142 of the Act is confined to determination of liability under Section 140 of the Act and for passing award under Section 166 of the Act, the said provision has no applicability and the permanent disablement of the claimant has to be proved as a fact and cannot be presumed based on the assertion made by the claimant. 16. Consequently, it cannot be said that the appellant has proved by cogent evidence that he has suffered permanent disablement on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 , while considering the above aspect relating to award of compensation for loss of income on account of permanent disablement even in cases, where permanent disability certificates are produced by the claimants, held that:- "Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:- (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement; (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person. if the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity." 17. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity." 17. In the present case, the appellant has totally failed to prove any kind of permanent disablement and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in refusing grant of any compensation for future loss of income. 18. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards physical pain and mental agony, which amount appears to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 68,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of application i.e. 18.12.2001 till the date of payment by the respondent-lnsurance Company.Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 68,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of application i.e. 18.12.2001 till the date of payment. The amount of compensation be paid to the claimant within a period of two months. No costs. Appeal Partly allowed. *******