JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant-appellant seeking enhancement of the award dated 11/01/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur in claim case No.63/2003 by which a compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,314/- has been awarded to the claimant-appellant. 2. The brief facts, as emerging on the face of record gathered on perusal of the material available on record, impugned order and as per the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, are that on 08/09/2002, when the claimant-appellant was standing nearby Truck Union Stand, Main Chowki, Sawaimadhopur, respondent No.1-Sahid, driver of Truck bearing No.RJ-14-1G-1073, suddenly took the truck in back side in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed, resulting in causing accident of the claimant-appellant and sustaining grievous injuries. 3. The claimant-appellant submitted claim petition before the Tribunal impleading the driver and owner of the bus as respondents No. 1 & 2 and since the bus was insured with the insurance company, the insurance company was impleaded as respondent No.3. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the claimant-appellant was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and was working as a Driver and despite being an experienced man in the field of driving, he has been unable to discharge his duties on account of the said accident. It was further pleaded that due to the said accident, apart from sustaining various injuries including fracture of Ulna Bone of left hand, there was fracture of neck of joint of femur bone of hip and injury in right elbow and claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,63,000/-. 4. The respondents No.1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the truck filed joint reply denying the averments made in the claim petition and it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck but the claimant-appellant himself was negligent. It was further contended that the driver of the truck was having valid driving licence and the truck was duly insured with the respondent No.3-Insurance Company. As regards the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, it filed its reply thereby admitting that the truck was insured for the period in question but at the same time asserted that the said truck was not involved in the accident. As regards the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, it filed its reply thereby admitting that the truck was insured for the period in question but at the same time asserted that the said truck was not involved in the accident. It was further contended that it was negligence of the claimant-appellant himself that the alleged incident took place. It was further contended that the driver of the truck was not having valid driving license to drive the truck and there was violation of the conditions of the insurance. It was further contended that the claim has been submitted by hatching false and concocted story by the claimant-appellant and such a claim deserves to be dismissed with cost. 5. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence and material on record, framed as many as four issues including the issue of relief and awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,314/- in favour of the claimant-appellant. Hence the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Counsel for the claimant-appellant submitted that the Tribunal on the basis of assumption and presumption only allowed a meagre amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- only against loss of income which has no basis and the Tribunal ought to have considered the basic income, then should have adopted appropriate multiplier and then should have come to the conclusion. He further contended that the claimant-appellant was a driver and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month but discarding this fact the Tribunal has allowed only an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which is too meagre and cannot be said to be just and proper and contended that the compensation should always be based by adopting the income based on the facts and then appropriate multiplier should have been adopted and thereafter the compensation on the other heads should have been allowed separately. He further contended that despite the injuries caused to the claimant-appellant being grievous and severe, a very meagre amount has been allowed by way of mental agony, pain & sufferings and other heads which ought to have been allowed in just and proper manner so as to appropriately compensate the claimant-appellant. He further contended that the claimant-appellant looking to the nature of injury which the claimant-appellant sustained so also the treatment which he undertook in hospital during the relevant time as also the amount incurred by him in medical bills, hospitalisation charges etc. He further contended that the claimant-appellant looking to the nature of injury which the claimant-appellant sustained so also the treatment which he undertook in hospital during the relevant time as also the amount incurred by him in medical bills, hospitalisation charges etc. and also the loss of income suffered by him and the mental agony which he sustained, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under these various heads, is too little and meagre and cannot be said to be just and proper compensation in any manner and the same also deserves to be appropriately enhanced. He further contended that the disability certificate speaks of disability to the extent of 25.80% on account of grievous injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant and, therefore, there was 100% loss of income and considering the above facts and circumstances, he ultimately argued that the compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced suitably. He also contended for allowing future prospects and relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 as also judgment in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 . 7. Per-contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that looking to the nature of injury which the claimant-appellant sustained and the disability certificate issued to him, the disability being only 25.80%, the compensation awarded by the ld. Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is just and proper and there is no ambiguity or perversity in the award passed by the ld. Tribunal and the award passed by the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with. He contended that such injuries heal up during the course of the time and are not in the nature of permanent disability. He further contended that the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of income and on other heads also. He further contended that the future prospect, in the facts and circumstances, is not liable to be allowed as no material has been placed even with regard to the fact that the appellant was a driver and, therefore, there is no permanency of income or steady source of income and, therefore, future prospect is not allowable. He further contended that the future prospect, in the facts and circumstances, is not liable to be allowed as no material has been placed even with regard to the fact that the appellant was a driver and, therefore, there is no permanency of income or steady source of income and, therefore, future prospect is not allowable. He also relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 as also the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record including the award impugned. 9. In my view, the contention of the counsel for the claimant-appellant appears to be fair and reasonable that the compensation should always be based upon computing/assessing the income and then multiplier system should be followed and in my view, it would be appropriate to allow compensation based upon the income earning capacity and then the multiplier system. However, in the instant case , the Tribunal allowed Rs. 50,000/- against loss of income keeping in view the nature of the disability which the claimant-appellant sustained but considering the fact that the claimant-appellant was aged about 27 years and was an experienced man in the field in which he was engaged, in my view, he would have certainly earned income at least to the extent of Rs. 3000/- per month and therefore, it would be appropriate to adopt income at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month. Since the appellant is said to be of the age of about 27 years at the relevant time and on the basis of his age, the multiplier is required to be adopted at 17 on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma. 10. With reference to the future prospects, while the counsel for the claimants-appellants relied upon judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 10. With reference to the future prospects, while the counsel for the claimants-appellants relied upon judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 as also judgment in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 , the counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 as also the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . This Court in the case of Jagdish & Ors. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 3690/2008) decided on 4th March, 2014 has considered this issue at length after considering the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (supra), Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (supra), Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (supra), Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) as also the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways reported in (2014) 1 TAC 711 (SC) , G. Dhanasekar v. M.D.,Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.: I (2014) A.C.C. 593 (SC) ; Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company reported in (2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC) and also judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of R.S.R.T.C. v. Pusha Ram & Ors. reported in I (2014) ACC 37(Raj.) , Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Ors. reported in 2014(1) WLC (Raj.) 128 and Sona & Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No.3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013. reported in I (2014) ACC 37(Raj.) , Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Ors. reported in 2014(1) WLC (Raj.) 128 and Sona & Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No.3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013. In my view, considering the above authorities, the future prospects is to be allowed both in case of a person who had permanency in employment may be Government or otherwise so also to be allowed in a case of self employed person with having sufficient stability and steadiness in source of income and can be allowed in the case, where a person may be earning on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis as they also increase their income/charges after some time as the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up. The Government also increases wages as also other emoluments on periodical basis based on the index, accordingly it would be appropriate to allow future prospects as it can be said that there was steady source of income. Since the claimant-appellant was 27 years of age, therefore, future prospects will be enhanced by 50% of the income. 11. As regards the amount allowed by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- under the head of mental agony, pains & sufferings etc., in my view, the same is very merger and deserves to be enhanced and accordingly it is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. So far as the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 1000/- for local hospitalisation; Rs. 11,000/- against hospitalisation charges for 11 days at SMS hospital; Rs. 10,000/- awarded for travelling from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur from time to time and Rs. 9,000/- awarded against loss of income at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- month, the same is considered to be just and proper and is not liable to be enhanced. However, as regards the amount allowed by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 4,314/- against purchase of medicines etc., the same cannot be said to just and proper and accordingly I enhance the same to Rs. 15,000/- keeping in view the fact that the appellant remained hospitalised at Sawaimadhpur and then for about 11 days in SMS Hospital at Jaipur and would have certainly incurred such an amount in treatment and may not have been able to maintain the bills. 12. 15,000/- keeping in view the fact that the appellant remained hospitalised at Sawaimadhpur and then for about 11 days in SMS Hospital at Jaipur and would have certainly incurred such an amount in treatment and may not have been able to maintain the bills. 12. In view of the above, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Rs (A) Income L 3,000/- PM (B) Add: Future prospects 50% of the income L 1,500/- PM A+B L 4,500/- PM (C) Multiplier 4500x12x17 L 9,18,000/- (D) Amount payable after reduction on account of disability to the extent of 25.80% L 2,36,844/- (E) Mental agony, pain, suffering etc. L 15,000/- (F) Local hospitalisation L 1,000/- (G) Hospitalisation at SMS Jaipur for 11 days. L 11,000/- (H) Travelling from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur from time to time. L 10,000/- (I) Loss of future Income for three months L 9,000/- (J) Medicines L 15,000/- Total Rs. 2,97,844/- Less-Compensation awarded by Tribunal L 86,314/- Amount enhanced Rs. 2,11,530/- or say L 2,11,500/- 13. Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 2,11,500/-, as aforesaid, is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal. 14. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 11/01/2007 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 2,11,500/- with interest @ 6% will be paid by the non-petitioners. The interest will however be allowed from the date of the award by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- of the enhanced amount with interest so computed rounded off to the nearest thousands in the name of the claimant-appellant in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) in the nearest post office for a period of five years. The interest accruing on month to month basis will be deposited in the saving account with the same post office with permission to withdraw the monthly interest/ quarterly interest as per the scheme of the post office. The balance of the enhanced amount with interest would be disbursed to the claimant-appellant by the Tribunal by bank draft/bankers cheque. It is made clear that the appellant will be allowed interest only as aforesaid of Rs. 2,00,000/- of the enhanced amount so deposited in MIS and will not be allowed to take a loan on the same from the post office or raise loan on the said MIS. The above exercise to be done within two months. No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******