JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the injured Satya Narain, feeling aggrieved by the award dated 01.01.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Case No. 472/1994 (Satya Narain v. Shyoji Ram Mali & Ors.) , whereby, his claim petition has been partly accepted and he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 20.07.1994. 2. On 03.06.1994 at around 7:30 A.M. the appellant was proceeding as a pillion rider on a Scooter No.RJ06 M 9262 on Bhilwara - Mandal Road when he met with an accident with a Truck No.RSD 5017. The vehicle ran over the left leg of the appellant, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and the said left leg of the appellant had to be amputated as a result of the accident. 3. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation under various heads. It was claimed that at the time of accident the appellant was aged 36 years and claimed to be earning Rs. 3,000/- per month from a grocery shop. 4. The claim was contested by the respondents and the Claims Tribunal framed several issues. On behalf of the appellant three witnesses were examined and several documents including disability certificate and treatment bills were got exhibited. The respondents did not produce any evidence. 5. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 65,000/- for the cost of treatment, Rs. 10,000/- towards salary of his brother Gopal, who attended on him during his treatment at Ahemadabad, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment, Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering and further awarded Rs. 60,000/- towards compensation for loss of future earnings (500x12x10). Accordingly, total compensation payable to the appellant amounted to Rs. 1,55,000/- with simple interest @ 12% per annum as noticed above. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of the entire compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. 7. It has been submitted by the counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal grossly erred in awarding meager compensation under the head of loss of future income at a sum of Rs. 500/- per month and further the multiplier of 10 has also been wrongly adopted. 7. It has been submitted by the counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal grossly erred in awarding meager compensation under the head of loss of future income at a sum of Rs. 500/- per month and further the multiplier of 10 has also been wrongly adopted. It was submitted that the statements of appellant, his wife and his brother have gone unrebutted, inasmuch as, no evidence has been produced by the respondents and all the three witnesses have categorically stated that the loss of income had been Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was further submitted that the award of Rs. 15,000/- under the head pain and suffering was quite meager looking to the fact that the left leg of the appellant was amputated at the age of 36 years and he remained under treatment for a long time. 8. The counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sri Kumaresh v. The Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr., reported at 2011 RAR 129 (SC) and submitted that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 9. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever in support of his claim for loss of future income and even the amount of Rs. 500/- per month has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal on assumption only. The learned counsel sought to distinguish the judgment cited by the counsel for the appellant on the ground that the said case related to a manual labourer and the appellant herein claims to be running a grocery shop and, therefore, the same cannot be equated for the purpose of loss of future earning on account of permanent disablement looking to the nature of business and further submitted that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal was adequate and does not require any interference by this Court.I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 10. The appellant-claimant himself claimed in the claim 4 petition that he was aged about 36 years and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month from the grocery shop. However, while being examined as PW-1, he claimed that he was doing business of grocery, cloth and sweets and his income has been reduced by 75% after the accident and he has suffered loss of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the grocery shop. However, while being examined as PW-1, he claimed that he was doing business of grocery, cloth and sweets and his income has been reduced by 75% after the accident and he has suffered loss of Rs. 2000-3000 per month. PW-2 Vidhya Devi wife of the appellant claimed that the loss was @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and PW-3 Gopal, who is brother of the appellant stated that the appellant used to earn about Rs. 3,000/- per month before accident. There is hardly any cross-examination on this aspect by the respondents. 11. A bear reading of the above statements reveal that though this aspect cannot be disputed that the appellant was doing business, but there is apparent contradiction in the averments made in the claim petition, statements of the appellant, his wife and his brother regarding the income and/or loss of income. On the one hand, in the claim petition and in the statement of PW-3 it has been stated that the income of the appellant was Rs. 3,000/-, the appellant and his wife claim that the loss of income was Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, even if the statement of the appellant is taken into consideration, wherein, he has stated that his income has been reduced by 75% and he was suffering loss of rupees 2000-3000 per month, the income in that case would at best be around Rs. 3,000/- only. Further, the said income of Rs. 3,000/- per month also apparently is in consonance with the claim made in the claim petition as well as statement of PW-3 - Gopal Lal. The medical certificate produced as Exhibit-11 clearly establishes the5 disability at 40%, which brings the amount of loss of future income to Rs. 1,200/- per month. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the grocery/cloth/sweet shop was being managed by the appellant alongwith his father, a just and reasonable loss of future earning can be taken as Rs. 1,000/- per month and the amount calculated by the Claims Tribunal @ Rs. 500/- per month without assigning any reason either way appears to be erroneous. Though no documentary proof in respect of the income has been produced by the appellant, the respondents have failed to contradict or cross-examine the witnesses on the said issue. 12. 1,000/- per month and the amount calculated by the Claims Tribunal @ Rs. 500/- per month without assigning any reason either way appears to be erroneous. Though no documentary proof in respect of the income has been produced by the appellant, the respondents have failed to contradict or cross-examine the witnesses on the said issue. 12. The multiplier of 10 adopted by the Claims Tribunal is also apparently incorrect as the appellant was aged 36 years at the time of accident and, therefore, the appropriate multiplier in the present case would be 16. Accordingly, just compensation for loss of future earnings comes to Rs. 1,92,000/- (1000 x 12 x 16). 13. The appellant was just aged 36 years and one of his legs had been amputated below the knee, the same would severely affect his future prospects of earning and he will also have to be permanently disabled for life and suffer the necessary discomforts accompanying living without a leg. In light of the above aspect and the fact that the appellant remained hospitalized for a considerably long period, the amount for pain and suffering deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-, keeping in view the date of accident. 14. The judgment cited by counsel for the appellant is clearly distinguishable on facts, as rightly submitted by counsel for the respondent, a case of manual labourer cannot be equated with a business man so far as loss of future earning is concerned. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the amount awarded to the appellant under the head loss of future income is enhanced from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,92,000/- and the amount under the head pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- thus the total award would now be Rs. 3,02,000/- instead of Rs. 1,55,000/-. The appellant would also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 20.07.1994. No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******