Judgment B.S. Verma, J. This appeal, U/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against the judgment and award dated 30-1-2008, passed by M.A.C.T./Addl. District Judge/1st F.T.C. Haldwani in MACT Case No. 171 of 2004, whereby a sum of Rs. 31,49,516/- has been awarded as compensation against United India Insurance Company along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 3-10-2003, at about 7-30 p.m. claimant Ashraf Hussain (since deceased) was going to his home on foot and when he reached near Bearshiva school on Nainital Road, a truck No. U.P. 01-2753 dashed him from his backside. The driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently. The injured received grievous injuries. The injured was brought to Soban Singh Jeena Base Hospital Haldwani wherefrom he was referred to Krishna Hospital. Looking to precarious condition of Ashraf Hussain, he was referred by the doctor to Vimhans Hospital Delhi. The injured sustained injuries on his teeth, brain and legs. Iron rod was inserted in his legs. According to claimant a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was spent on his treatment. Due to injuries the injured had become permanently disable. According to petitioner the injured was posted as Assistant Manager in S.B.I. Haldwani and he was getting salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The claimant filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,04,50,000/-. 3. The claim petition was contested by United Indian Insurance Company by filing its W.S. and alleged that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation until it is established that the accident had occurred due to the rashness of the driver of the truck and the vehicle was having valid documents and the driver was also possessing valid driving license and the vehicle was being driven in terms of insurance policy. 4. The opposite party No.2 owner of the vehicle also filed his W.S. and alleged that the offending vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company and its driver was having valid driving license and liability to pay compensation is upon the insurance company. 5. The learned tribunal framed the following issues in the claim petition:- 1. 4. The opposite party No.2 owner of the vehicle also filed his W.S. and alleged that the offending vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company and its driver was having valid driving license and liability to pay compensation is upon the insurance company. 5. The learned tribunal framed the following issues in the claim petition:- 1. Whether on 3-10-2003 at about 7.30 P.M. when claimant Ashrad Hussain was moving on foot near Bearshiva School Haldwani, a truck No. U.P. 01/2753 which was being driving at a high speed and negligently by its driver, dashed the claimant, due to which he sustained grievous injuries?. 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?. 3. Whether the claimant has received the expenses for the damages suffered by him from his department?. 4. Whether at the time of accident the driver of the truck was possessing valid driving license and the truck was having valid documents and the truck was insured with O.P. No. 1, United India Insurance Company?. 5. Whether the claim is entitled to get compensation on the basis of injuries sustained by him in the accident? If so, how-much and from whom?. 6. The parties led evidence in support of their case. The learned tribunal after considering the evidence on record has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the truck, the petition is not bad for non-joinder of necessary party, and the truck was insured with United India Insurance Company and its driver was having valid driving licence. Accordingly the claim petition was decreed for a compensation of Rs. 31,49,516/- payable by United India Insurance Company. 7. Feeling aggrieved the United India Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 8. The claimant/respondent also filed Cross Objection in the appeal for enhancement of compensation on 25.6.2008 and also filed some medical bills. The court on 27-6-2008 after condoning the delay in filing the cross objection, has taken the cross objection on record. However, the respondents have not filed application U/O 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., therefore, without adducing evidence and proving these bills, the same cannot be taken into consideration to enhance the compensation. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. However, the respondents have not filed application U/O 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., therefore, without adducing evidence and proving these bills, the same cannot be taken into consideration to enhance the compensation. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has raised his argument mainly on three grounds- firstly, the disability which was proved before the M.A.C.T. was 70% as per doctor’s opinion, but the learned tribunal considered it 100% without any cogent and reliable evidence and this finding of the tribunal is perverse, secondly, the future expenses which have been awarded by the tribunal as Rs. 6,00,000/-, is on higher side and thirdly, the medical bills filed by the claimant before the tribunal have not been proved in accordance with law, therefore, no amount could be awarded against those bills. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-claimants has contended that the claimant was posted as Assistant Manager in the S.B.I. on fixed wages therefore he was entitled to get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and as he met with accident the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation but the tribunal has not considered this aspect. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Santosh Devi Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in 2012 (3) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.). 12. He further contended that the tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency on basic pay+D.A., therefore, loss of dependency be calculated on 30% additional amount. It was further contended that the tribunal has committed a manifest error of law by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, whereas in the injury case this deduction should not have been done. He has placed reliance on the case of Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar and another reported in JT 2010 (13) SC 38. 13. I have gone through the above cited judgment. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in para-20 that- ‘in the case of an injured claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to claimant, (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in para-20 that- ‘in the case of an injured claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to 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 on3-third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses.’ 14. In the case at hand the claimant was an injured and the compensation payable to the claimants is in lieu of injuries suffered by the injured (since deceased), and for future loss of earning of the injured, therefore, in view of above decision of Apex Court, there is no need to deduct one-third towards the personal and living expenses. 15. It was contended that the accident had occurred in the year 2003 and the injured succumbed to the injuries in the year 2008 and he remained in coma and a huge amount has been expended on his treatment, but the tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants also contended that the deceased was posted as Assistant Manager in S.B.I. Branch Haldwani and he was bound to get increased salary in future, therefore, claimants are entitled to an addition of 30%. Learned counsel has relied on the case of K.R. Madhusudhan and others versus Administrative Officer and another, reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 689. 17. On the other hand learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the claimant was more than 52 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, he was not entitled to an addition of 30%. He has relied upon the judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein it has been held that there should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. It is further observed by the Apex Court that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure there-from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 18. It is further observed by the Apex Court that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure there-from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 18. In the case at hand the deceased was 52 years of age and employed as Assistant Manager in the S.B.I. and there was provision of annual increments etc. in his salary, and there was definite rise in the income due to future prospects, therefore, in view of the case of K.R. Madhusudhan and others versus Administrative Officer and another (supra), the claimants are entitled for 30% addition towards loss of future prospects. 19. So far as the permanent disability of 100% calculated by the tribunal is concerned, it was proved before the tribunal that the claimant has suffered 70% disability but the learned tribunal has committed a manifest error by taking 100% disability of the claimant. P.W.4, Dr. Kanchan Kumar Bhagat has proved the disability certificate issued by C.M.O. Nainital and according to this witness the disability of the injured-deceased was 70%. Therefore claimants are entitled to get compensation for 70% disability. 20. The learned tribunal has recorded a finding that a sum of Rs. 14,20,000/- towards medical expenses has been proved by P.W.4, Dr. Kanchan Kumar Bhagat and P.W.5. Dr. Jogendra Singh Khurana and it is also proved that a sum of Rs. 8,53,740/- has been given to him by his department and this amount was deducted from the amount of medical expenses, i.e. Rs. 14,20,000/- and in this way a sum of Rs. 5,66,260/- has been paid under the head of medical expenses. On the point of monthly salary of the injured-deceased the learned tribunal has held that the injured-deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 22,537/- and the annual income being Rs.2,70,444/-. The tribunal also deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, but the deduction is not to be made for the reason that the compensation was calculated in respect of injured person. The multiplier of 11 has rightly been adopted by the tribunal. Thus the compensation comes to Rs. 2,70,444/- X 12 X 70/100 = Rs.22,71,729/-. The injured was also entitled to addition of 30% i.e. Rs. 22,71,729/- X 30/100 = Rs. 6,81,518/-. The compensation of claimants therefore comes to Rs. The multiplier of 11 has rightly been adopted by the tribunal. Thus the compensation comes to Rs. 2,70,444/- X 12 X 70/100 = Rs.22,71,729/-. The injured was also entitled to addition of 30% i.e. Rs. 22,71,729/- X 30/100 = Rs. 6,81,518/-. The compensation of claimants therefore comes to Rs. 22,71,729/-+ Rs 6,81,518/-= Rs. 29,53,247/-. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards future treatment and expenses towards his caretaker and thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 29,53,247/-+ Rs. 6,00,000/=-= Rs. 35,53,247/-. 21. Thus, from the discussion made above, the appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed. 22. The cross-objection filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 35,53,247/- as compensation from the United India Insurance Company along with interest awarded by the tribunal, instead of Rs. 31,49,516/- awarded by the tribunal. 23. Let the statutory amount deposited by the appellant with the Registry be remitted to the tribunal concerned.