JUDGMENT 1. - Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and with a prayer to make suitable enhancement in the same, the claimant-appellant has filed this Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") against the judgment and award dated 9.11.2004 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi in Claim Case No.162/2002. By way of the aforesaid award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,99,000/- as compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the claimant-appellant sustained several injuries in a road accident which took place on 28.4.2002 involving a vehicle (Jeep) bearing registration No.RJ-20-P-2738 which at the time of accident was being driven by the respondent No.1 rashly and negligently. As a result of injuries sustained by the appellant, his right leg was amputated. The claimant-appellant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming a sum of Rs. 33,48,000/- as compensation under various heads. The respondent-Insurance Company filed reply and averred that the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant is unreasonable and excessive. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed by the Tribunal and the question of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellant was considered under Issue No.3. On the basis of evidence available on record and taking into consideration the fact that the right leg of the appellant was amputated above his knee following amounts were awarded under different heads:- (i) Medical expenses incurred during treatment Rs. 4,000 (ii) Loss of enjoyment of amenities and expectation of life Rs. 1,50,000 (iii) Special diet, attendant and transportation charges Rs. 20,000 (iv) Mental and physical pain suffered by the appellant Rs. 25,000 (v) Loss of future earnings as a result of permanent disability sustained by the appellant Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 2,99,000 3. In this manner a total sum of Rs. 2,99,000 with interest was awarded by the Tribunal. 4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds:- (1) It was the case of the appellant that as an agriculturist he was earning Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 2,99,000 3. In this manner a total sum of Rs. 2,99,000 with interest was awarded by the Tribunal. 4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds:- (1) It was the case of the appellant that as an agriculturist he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal did not determine the monthly income of the appellant and overlooking the permanent disability caused to the appellant to the extent of 60% as his right leg was amputated above the knee and without applying a proper multiplier has awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of future loss of income whereas the correct method of determination of future loss of income is that annual income of the injured be first determined and then considering the permanent disability sustained by him, an appropriate multiplier is used considering his age at the time of the accident, but in the present case, the learned Tribunal failed to do so. This Court has jurisdiction to determine the loss of future income by following the aforesaid method. (2) Although, to prove the monthly income of the appellant no documentary evidence has been produced, but looking to the fact that it is undisputed that the appellant is an agriculturist, his monthly income must be taken to be at least Rs. 3,000/- and looking to the fact that at the time of accident his age was 22 years, multiplier of 18 must be used to determine the loss of future income. (3) Although, in the certificate produced by the appellant the permanent disability has been shown to the extent of 60%, but looking to the fact that the appellant is an agriculturist, his functional disability and proportionate loss of earning capacity should be taken to be 100% as he would not be able to do his agriculture work in more. (4) Although, no specific evidence has been produced by the appellant to the effect that in future also he would need treatment and incur medical expenses for the same, but looking to the nature of injuries sustained by him and the permanent disability caused to him in the form of amputation of right leg above knee, a reasonable amount is required to be awarded under this head also. It can easily be assumed that in the aforesaid situation the appellant would require continuous treatment in future also throughout his life. (5) Similarly, looking to the permanent disability sustained by the appellant it can easily be inferred that expenses would be incurred by him in future also for special diet, attendant and transportation charges from time to time and, therefore, a reasonable amount is liable to be awarded under this head also. (6) A meagre amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head on mental and physical pain and suffering which is dis-proportionate to the injuries and disability sustained by the appellant. A reasonable additional amount is required to be awarded under this head also. (7) No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of earnings during treatment. From the evidence available on record it is clear that the appellant remained under treatment at least for a month and, therefore, a sum of money is required to be awarded under this head taking into consideration the monthly income to be determined by this Court. 5. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company that although the learned Tribunal has went wrong in awarding a lumpsum amount under the head of future loss of income and the same should have been determined by following the multiplier system, but looking to the year of accident which is 2002, the monthly income of the appellant as an agriculturist can be taken at the most Rs. 1800/- per month and loss of future income must be determined by this Court accordingly. It was further submitted that so far as the other heads are concerned, the Tribunal has already awarded sufficient amount requiring no interference by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and gone through the material available on record as well as the prevalent legal position. 7. It was further submitted that so far as the other heads are concerned, the Tribunal has already awarded sufficient amount requiring no interference by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and gone through the material available on record as well as the prevalent legal position. 7. My findings with reasons are as below:- (1) This submission of the appellant is acceptable that the quantum of future loss of income should have been determined by the learned Tribunal by first determining his monthly income and by adopting a suitable multiplier looking to the age of the appellant at the time of the accident and also taking into consideration the extent of permanent disability suffered by him, but this submission of appellant is not acceptable that as a result of amputation of his right leg above knee his functional disability should be taken to be 100%. No evidence has been produced on behalf of the appellant that as a result of permanent disability suffered by him he is no more in a position to do his job as an agriculturist and there is 100% loss of his earning capacity and he has become incapable to do his job in the same manner in which he was doing it before the accident. I am of the considered view that the loss of functional disability and earning capacity of the appellant can be taken 60% only. So far as monthly income of the appellant is concerned, looking to the fact that he is an agriculturist it cannot be expected from him to produce documentary evidence to prove his monthly income, but the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month can also not be accepted and in the overall facts and circumstances of the case his income can be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Looking to the age of the appellant at the time of accident to be 22 years, multiplier of 18 must be used to determine the loss of future income. 8. If the loss of future income of the appellant is calculated by adopting the aforesaid method it comes as follows:- Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 18 x 60/100 = Rs. Looking to the age of the appellant at the time of accident to be 22 years, multiplier of 18 must be used to determine the loss of future income. 8. If the loss of future income of the appellant is calculated by adopting the aforesaid method it comes as follows:- Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 18 x 60/100 = Rs. 3,88,800 (2) Although, no specific evidence has been produced on behalf of the appellant showing that he will require future treatment and will incur expenses for it, but even then looking to the injuries sustained by him and percentage of permanent disability caused to him in the form of amputation of right leg above knee it can easily be inferred that the appellant would definitely require future treatment during his entire life and, therefore, by considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case, I deem it reasonable to award a lumpsum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head to the appellant. (3) Similarly, although no specific evidence has been produced by the appellant to the effect that he will incur expenses for special diet, help of attendant and transportation charges in future also, but looking to the disability sustained by the appellant, it can easily be inferred that in future also the appellant would incur expenses for the aforesaid head also and, therefore, I deem it proper to award a lumpsum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head also. (4) So far as the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of mental and physical pain suffered by the appellant is concerned, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be sufficient by any measurement and I deem it proper to award a further amount of Rs. 25,000/- under this head. (5) The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of income for the period for which the appellant remained under treatment and, therefore, I deem it proper to award Rs. 3,000/- to him under this head considering the monthly income of the appellant assessed by this Court. 9. The claimant-appellant is, therefore, entitled to obtain the following amount under various heads:- (i) Loss of future income Rs. 3,88,800.00 (ii) For future treatment and medicines Rs. 50,000.00 (iii) For future special diet, attendant and transportation charges Rs. 50,000.00 (iv) Additional amount under the head of pain and suffering Rs. 9. The claimant-appellant is, therefore, entitled to obtain the following amount under various heads:- (i) Loss of future income Rs. 3,88,800.00 (ii) For future treatment and medicines Rs. 50,000.00 (iii) For future special diet, attendant and transportation charges Rs. 50,000.00 (iv) Additional amount under the head of pain and suffering Rs. 25,000.00 (v) Loss of earning during treatment Rs. 3,000.00 Rs. 5,16,800.00 10. As already said the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of future loss of income and, therefore, this amount is to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. The net additional amount obtainable by the appellant comes to Rs. 5,16,800 - 1,00,000 = Rs. 4,16,800/-. The appellant is also entitled to obtain interest @ 6% per annum on the aforesaid additional amount of Rs. 4,16,800/-. 11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and it is ordered that the appellant is entitled to receive an additional amount of Rs. 4,16,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 12. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid additional amount along with interest within a period of one month from today in the concerned Tribunal. On the amount being deposited, the Tribunal after hearing the appellant-claimant and by ascertaining his identity would pass an appropriate order regarding distribution of the aforesaid amount at its discretion in accordance with law. No order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******