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 29/09/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur in claim case No.12/2006 by which a compensation to the tune of Rs. 67,000/- 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 21/11/2005 at about 2.30 PM, while the claimant-appellant was standing on Jaipur Road near Devnarayan Temple Gate, all of sudden a Jeep bearing No.RJ-18-C-2665, which was being driven by its driver in rash & negligent manner and in high speed, hit the claimant-appellant causing accident on account of which the claimant-appellant sustained fracture on his right leg and other 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 35 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of working as driver and also from agriculture work. It was further pleaded that due to the said accident, there was fracture in both the legs of the claimant-appellant and due to the said accident, he received 21.18% permanent disability and ultimately claimed for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 29,60,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle filed reply denying the averments made in the claim petition and as regards respondent No.2, owner of the offending vehicle, he filed reply in which it was averred that even if it is assumed that the accident occurred due to negligence of the respondent No.1-driver or that the offending vehicle was involved in causing the accident, then, since the offending vehicle is insured, the liability of paying compensation is of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company. As regard respondent No.3-Insurance Company, it denied the averments made in the claim petition and averred that since the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence and since the driver and owner of the vehicle violated the conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence and material on record, framed as many as four issues including the issue of relief and on the basis of material and evidence available on record, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 67,000/- 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, without any apparent basis or method, has only allowed an amount of Rs. 46,000/- in lump-sum on account of the permanent disability which is wholly unjust and improper whereas in such matters, the compensation ought to have been allowed after computing income and then adopting multiplier and thereafter the other factors also ought to have been taken into consideration. He further contended that the claimant-appellant was a driver and also having his own agricultural income on the basis of ownership of the agricultural land which was claimed to be six bighas and therefore, the income was certainly to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He further contended that the claimant-appellant was aged about 35 years and was a healthy man and on account of this accident has suffered severe and grievous injuries and even as per the medical board certificate the disability is to the extent of 21.18% and after the accident, he has been unable to live/lead proper life or to drive the vehicle properly and is unable to discharge the duties of driver despite he being an experienced person. Counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded on other heads is also grossly low as only a meagre amount to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded against the head of mental agony, pains & sufferings and in the same manner, a meagre amount to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- only has been awarded for travelling expenses. Counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded on other heads is also grossly low as only a meagre amount to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded against the head of mental agony, pains & sufferings and in the same manner, a meagre amount to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- only has been awarded for travelling expenses. As regards the compensation awarded against nutritious diet, loss of work for the period he remained out of job and for the attendant, counsel submits that it is too meagre and deserves to be appropriately enhanced. Counsel further submits that the claimant-appellant had steady source of income and permanency of job and therefore, he deserves to be awarded future prospects also. Counsel for the claimant-appellant relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered 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 the disability is not severe and even the doctors have not opined that the claimant-appellant can not drive the vehicle. It is only that he cannot sit properly or run or climb the stairs for some time and it is not that the injury would make him disabled for the entire life. 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. 46,000/- 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. In support of his submission, counsel for the respondents relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 . 8. In support of his submission, counsel for the respondents relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 . 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. It is true that there is no evidence led by the claimant-appellant with regard to he being working as a driver or having steady source of income but it is a fact that the claimant-appellant was a healthy man of about 35 years of age at the time of accident and certainly a person, who is about 35 years of age, with the experience which he gained, it can be said that he would be earning at least Rs. 100/- per day or Rs. 3000/- per month. Accordingly, in my view, it would be just and reasonable to come to the conclusion that the claimant-appellant would be earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. In my view, the compensation should be based upon computing/assessing the income and then multiplier system should be followed but in the instant case, the Tribunal, without following that criteria, has directly and straightway worked out compensation to the extent of Rs. 46,000/- which in my view, is not proper and it would be appropriate to allow compensation based upon the income earning capacity and then the multiplier system. Since the appellant is said to be of the age of about 35 years at the relevant time and on the basis of his age, the multiplier is required to be adopted at 16 on the basis of law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra.) 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. 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 earlier 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 this Court in the case of 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 below the age of 40, therefore, future prospects will be enhanced by 50% of the income. 11. An amount to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- is directed to be allowed under the head of mental agony, pains & sufferings etc. as against Rs. 1,000/- and as regards nutritious diet, travelling expenses, loss of work and attendant, the same is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-, 5,000/- ,5000/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively as against Rs. 1,000/-, 2,000/-, 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively. As regards the amount allowed to the tune of Rs. 15,500/- as against medical bills, the same appears to be fair and reasonable and is not required to be interfered with. 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 4500x12x16 L 8,64,000/- (D) Amount payable after reduction on account of disability to the extent of 21.18% (50% of it) L 95,040/- (E) Medical bills L 15,500/- (F) Mental agony, pain, suffering etc. L 10,000/- (G) Nutritious Diet L 5,000 (H) Travelling for treatment L 5,000/- (I) Loss of work L 5,000/- (J) Attendant L 2,000/- Total Rs. 1,37,540/- Less-Compensation awarded by Tribunal L 67,000/- Amount enhanced L 70,540/- or say L 71,000/- 13. Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 71,000/-, as aforesaid, is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal. 14. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 29/09/2006 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 71,000/- with interest @ 6% will be paid by the non-petitioners. The interest will be allowed from the date of submission of claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit Rs. 65,000/- 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 Tribunal is directed to deposit Rs. 65,000/- 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 on Rs. 65,000/- 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. *******