JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal') vide judgment and award dated 18.01.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant filed an application for compensation before the Tribunal, inter alia, with the averments that he was going from village Sarangpura Kanod to Amarpura on 16.03.1999 with Ram Lal when at Junjpura Circle respondent No. 1 Kanhaiya Lal driving a jeep rashly and negligently struck him from the back, which resulted in fracture in his leg and he suffered several injuries on his body; for the injuries and permanent disablement suffered on account of the said accident, the claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 25,30,000/-. 3. After being served, the driver, registered owner and owner of the jeep did not file any reply. The Insurance Company filed reply to the application and denied all the averments. The averments relating to negligence were also denied. It was alleged that the driver was driving the vehicle without valid and effective driving licence and denied its liability. 4. The Tribunal framed four issues and after evidence being led by the claimant and on exhibiting the insurance policy by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the jeep was driving rashly and negligently, which resulted in the accident; the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driver was not in possession of effective and valid driving licence and awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum from 29.04.2000. 5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant suffered grievous injuries and consequently suffered 10% permanent disablement, which was certified by the doctor vide Exhibit-29 and had also suffered injuries, which are apparent from Exhibit-27, the discharge ticket. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim on account of permanent disability by observing that normally in cases where there is a less than 20% permanent disability, the future loss of income cannot be taken into account, which finding is perverse and against the documentary evidence available on record and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to just compensation for the disability suffered by him. 6. 6. He has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Chunnilal v. Kalu & Anr., S.B.C.M.A. No. 1410 of 2007, decided on 10.09.2008 . 7. In reply, it was submitted by learned counsel for Insurance Company that the Tribunal has thoroughly considered all the aspects and has taken into account various facts, on the basis of which, the appellant could have suffered any loss and has also taken into consideration the 10% permanent disablement while awarding the compensation of Rs. 35,000/-in a lump sum manner and, therefore, the award impugned does not require any interference. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and have perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant suffered injuries on account of accident by rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 driver. The appellant suffered injuries like Fracture in left leg, Tibia and Fibula and was operated and OR was done. The disability certificate has been considered by the Tribunal and it has been observed that towards physical and mental pain, for deprivation of general amenities of life for a long time and for 10% permanent disablement, the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. However, in para 20 of the judgment, the Tribunal rejected the claim for loss of future income due to such 10% permanent disablement and observed that normally where a permanent disability is less than 20% no future loss of income is required to be compassionate. 10. The said observations made by the Tribunal as a rule cannot be accepted and, even if, the disability is less than 20%, the impact of such permanent disability has to be judged in each case on its individual merit. In the case in hand, the appellant claimant is a agriculturist and he has specifically stated in his statement that on account of the said disablement, he is not in a position to do agricultural operations and stand properly, which has resulted in loss of income to him. The appellant has not claimed compensation merely on account of the disability suffered by him, but has specifically claimed loss of income on account of such ability and, therefore, the claimant is entitled for future loss of income on account of even 10% disablement. 11. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The appellant has not claimed compensation merely on account of the disability suffered by him, but has specifically claimed loss of income on account of such ability and, therefore, the claimant is entitled for future loss of income on account of even 10% disablement. 11. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured at Rs. 2,000/- per month. In view of the above, the future loss of income is assessed at Rs. 200/- per month and adopting a multiplier of 15 as the claimant is aged 47 years, the appellant would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 36,000/- under the head of loss of future income. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to further sum of Rs. 36,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the respondents, who would be jointly and severally liable for the payment on the said amount from the date of filing application i.e. 29.04.2000. The amount of enhanced award be paid within a period of three months. No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******