JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal for enhancement has been filed by the claimant appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called; "the Act") against the award dated 29.05.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Dist. Judge (F.T. No. 4) M.A.C.T. Cases, Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 605/2004. Briefly stated the facts of the case as set up in the claim petition are that the claimant was travelling from Jodhpur to Udaipur on 30.09.2000 in a Car bearing Registration No. DL 1 CH 0612 owned by a firm name Services international, the non-claimant No. 4, the driver thereof was Ramniwas non-claimant No. 5 and it was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. non claimant No. 6. At around 11.30 in the night a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. GJ-1-9711 owned by the non-claimant No. 1 Bhadrik R. Shah, driven by Shanker non claimant No. 2 and insured by the National Insurance Co. non claimant No. 3 collided with the Car in which the appellant was travelling. As a result of the collision, the appellant received severe injuries. 2. A claim application under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the appellant claimant against the owners, the drivers and the Insurance Companies of the two vehicles involved in the accident claiming total compensation of Rs. 99,31,400/- for the injuries received and permanent disability suffered by her in the accident. 3. The Learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration of the claim application:- 4. The learned Tribunal held that the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident contributed equally in causing the accident by driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently. The defence raised by both the Insurance Companies were discarded. The appellant claimant was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 7 lacs to be shared jointly and severally amongst the owners, drivers and the insurers of the both the vehicles involved in the accident. The defence raised by both the Insurance Companies were discarded. The appellant claimant was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 7 lacs to be shared jointly and severally amongst the owners, drivers and the insurers of the both the vehicles involved in the accident. " 1- D;k fnukad 30-09-2000 dks jkf= ds yxHkx 11&11-30 cts ds e/; nsyokM+k iqfyl Fkkuk ftyk jktlaen esa nsyokMk ljdkjh vLirky ds ikl VkVk lweks th ts&1&9711 ds pkyd vizkFkhZ la0 2 kadj us rst xfr vkSj mis{kk ls pykrs gq, jke fuokl ds }kjk pykbZ tk jgh dkj Mh ,y@1@lh,p&0612 ds Vddj ekj dj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh] ftlls ifj.kkeLo:i dkj esa lokj izkfFkZ;k ds 'kjhj ij pksVsa vkbZ rFkk dkj {kfrxzLr gks xbZ\ 2- D;k izkfFkZ;k vizkFkhZx.k ls la;qDr o i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls :i;s 99]31]400@& izfrdj ds :i esa izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ 3- vuqrks"k\ " 5. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led before it, worked out the following calculation and computation for evaluating the compensation awardable to the claimant and partially allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Compensation claimed Rs. 99,31,400/- Age of the Claimant at the time of the accident 45 Years Annual income of the Claimant by working as a Executive House Keeper Hotel Shiv Niwas, Udaipur Rs. 8000/- x 12 = Rs. 96,000/- Permanent Disability 24.12% Loss of Annual Income 24.12% of Rs. 96,000/- = 23155/- Multiplier applied @ 15 Rs. 3,47,328/- Expenses on Special Diet and Mental Agony Rs. 95,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 2,57,989/- Total compensation awarded Rs. 7,00,317/- Rounded Off Rs. 7,00,000/- 6. The learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition. 7. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles in causing the accident and the owners, drivers and the Insurance Companies being jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded have become final as none of the non claimants have challenged the same. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to her. 8. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred on the following counts whilst calculating the compensation awardable to the appellant:- 1. The appellant was 45 years of at the time of filing of the claim application. She is a highly qualified lady. 8. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred on the following counts whilst calculating the compensation awardable to the appellant:- 1. The appellant was 45 years of at the time of filing of the claim application. She is a highly qualified lady. She passed her M.A. Examination and was the first Indian woman to have received a Doctorate in Tourism. She remained a National level Hockey Player. Before the accident she was working as an Executive House keeper at the Shiv Niwas Palace Hotel, City Palace, Udaipur and was drawing a salary of Rs. 8000/-. 2. Just before the accident, on 02.09.2000, she had applied for and was selected for appointment to the pest of General Manager, Khem Hotel, Tours & Travels Division. An appointment letter was issued to the appellant for this post with her basic salary fixed at Rs. 20,000/- and conveyance allowance of Rs. 5400/- per month with other facilities. The appellant was to join her new assignment on 01.11.2000. However, on account of the unfortunate accident she had to remain hospitalized and subsequently bed ridden for a period of about 3 years. Thus she had no option but to give up the lucrative job offered to her. She was also laid off from the job of Executive House Keeper at the Shiv Niwas Palace. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal was absolutely unjustified in discarding the salary certificate issued to the appellant by KHEMS Group and holding her income to be Rs. 8,000/- only while calculating the compensation. 3. He urged that no consideration whatsoever was made by the learned Tribunal towards future prospects and rise of income which is mandatory in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh, reported in 2013 ACJ-1403 and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company, reported in 2012 AIR SCW-2892. 4. He submitted that the appellant received a fracture on her right femur bone and lower end of radius bone and underwent numerous surgeries for repairing the same. Bone grafting had to be done for treating the injury. Numerous medical documents and certificates were proved on record to show that the appellant had to be hospitalized and was bed ridden for a long period of time because of the injuries received by her. 5. Bone grafting had to be done for treating the injury. Numerous medical documents and certificates were proved on record to show that the appellant had to be hospitalized and was bed ridden for a long period of time because of the injuries received by her. 5. He urged that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 24.12% as certified by the Medical Board of the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. Learned counsel submitted that in reference to the nature of job which the appellant was doing, it has to be assumed that the appellant lost 100% of her earning capacity as a result of the accident. The job of an Executive in Hotel Industry requires active movement and agility. He submitted that though the accident took place in the year 2000, the appellant was required to undergo continuous treatment right upto the year 2003. All the medical documents of the appellant were produced on record for proving this fact. He submitted that the appellant appeared in evidence and specifically stated that subsequent to the injuries she lost the ability to move freely and consequently she was laid off from the pest of the Executive House Keeper, Shiv Niwas where she was working for a number of years. She requires an attendant round the clock for being looked after. Learned counsel submitted that regarding this evidence given by the appellant no cross examination whatsoever was done by any of the respondents. He further submitted that Dr. Ravi Singh Parihar was examined on behalf of the appellant as A.W.2. He stated that, subsequent to the injuries and the treatment which the appellant received, she could only work from the table and only restricted movement was possible and that too with the aid of a stick. Documentary evidence showing termination from services by the management of Shiv Niwas Palace was also proved. Thus, he urged that the loss of income suffered by the appellant should be calculated 100% by treating her permanent disability to be 100%. 6. The learned Tribunal did not award any amount to the appellant for engaging an attendant during the period of her treatment and for remainder or her life. 7. He submitted that a sum of Rs. 95,000/- awarded to the appellant for mental agony and special diet is grossly inadequate. 8. The amount of Rs. 6. The learned Tribunal did not award any amount to the appellant for engaging an attendant during the period of her treatment and for remainder or her life. 7. He submitted that a sum of Rs. 95,000/- awarded to the appellant for mental agony and special diet is grossly inadequate. 8. The amount of Rs. 2,57,989/- awarded towards medical Expenses is also not commensurate with the medical expense documents submitted on behalf of the appellant on the record. 9. Thus, he urged that the compensation awarded to the appellant deserves to be enhanced appropriately by keeping in view the submissions noted above. 10. Mr. L.D. Khatri and Mr. R.K. Singhal, Learned Counsels for the respective Insurance Companies have opposed the submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, and submitted that the award passed by the Learned Tribunal is just and proper and does net call for any enhancement. 11. Heard Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. L.D. Khatri and Mr. R.K. Singhal, learned counsels for the respondents No. 6 and 3 respectively. Perused the impugned award and material available on the record. 12. The first issue which needs to be addressed by this Court is regarding the income claimed by the appellant. As per the letter Ex.P-41 issued by the Mewar Palace Organisation Pvt. Ltd. the appellant claimant was certified to be working Executive House Keeper at the Shiv Niwas Palace Hotel, City Palace, Udaipur till 03.10.2000 and was being paid a salary of Rs. 8000/- per month till that date. Ex.92 a letter of appointment claimed to have been issued to the appellant by a Group named KHEMS, Shoreham Palace Road, Ootacamund Certifying that she was offered appointment as a General Manager in the Khems Hotel, Tours & Travels with a salary nearing Rs. 25,000/- per month was placed on record to claim the appellant had been offered a job at a significantly higher pay-scale and that the opportunity was lost because of the injuries received in the accident. 13. However, the appellant in her sworn testimony deposed that she had been offered a job of Director, House Keeper, Bombay, The document Ex. 92 belies her averment because it is issued by a concern named KHEMS Ootacamund. No witness from the concern which issued the letter Ex. 92 was examined in support of the claim. 13. However, the appellant in her sworn testimony deposed that she had been offered a job of Director, House Keeper, Bombay, The document Ex. 92 belies her averment because it is issued by a concern named KHEMS Ootacamund. No witness from the concern which issued the letter Ex. 92 was examined in support of the claim. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly discarded the averment made in the claim petition regarding the appellant having been appointed on the post of General Manager, KHEMS Hotel & Tours at a salary in excess of Rs. 25,000/-. Otherwise also, it is absolutely unbelievable that from a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month, which the appellant was drawing by working at Shiv Niwas Palace Hotel which itself is a prestigious hotel, she would be offered an astronomical rise to Rs. 25,000/- straightaway. 14. Be that as it may. As the evidence led on behalf the appellant in this regard is not convincing, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal committed no error in discarding the appointment letter Ex. 92 and holding the salary of the appellant to be Rs. 8,000/- per month by working at Shiv Niwas Palace, Udaipur. 15. However, while assessing the award, the Tribunal did not account for the future prospects and rise in the income of the appellant. As the appellant was 45 years of age at the time of accident, an increase of 30% deserves to be acknowledged in the income of the appellant by future prospects. 16. The appellant specifically claimed and deposed in her testimony that she lost her job and her total capacity to earn because of injuries and the consequent permanent impairment received in the accident. PW.2 Dry Ravi examined on behalf of the appellant stated that subsequent to the injuries and the resultant permanent impairment caused to the appellant, henceforth, she would only be able to work on a Desk Job. The appellant's speciality was in the Tourism industry. She claims to be the first Indian woman to have been accorded the degree of the Doctorate in Tourism. In the tourism and hospitality industry, mobility and agility are of essence and a person not having these attributes is unlikely to survive in this industry particularly in the private sector. 17. The appellant's speciality was in the Tourism industry. She claims to be the first Indian woman to have been accorded the degree of the Doctorate in Tourism. In the tourism and hospitality industry, mobility and agility are of essence and a person not having these attributes is unlikely to survive in this industry particularly in the private sector. 17. Considering the nature of the appellant's speciality, expertise and the occupation and in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Manickam v. Metropolitan Transport Corp. Ltd., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 4337, Kavita v. Deepak, reported in 2012 (SC) 137, and Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., reported in 2014 (1) SCALE 377 , the loss of earning capacity of the appellant deserves to be acknowledged at 80% even though the permanent disability certificate issued to her only by the Medical Board Certifies a permanent disability of 24.12% only. Consequently, the loss of income has to be calculated keeping this figure in mind. 18. The appellant had to travel and undergo extensive treatment for a period of 3 years subsequent to the accident. Thus, the amount of Rs. 95,000/- awarded to her towards Special diet and mental agony is not appropriate and deserves to be enhanced appropriately to the figure of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 19. The learned Tribunal did not award any compensation to the appellant towards pain and suffering caused to her due to the injuries and for the permanent impairment suffered by her. Numerous medical certificates were produced on record showing that the appellant was active sports woman but because of the injuries and the consequent impairment, her movement has been restricted severely and she has been deprived of the opportunity to enjoy her life freely by actively participating in sports and other day to day activities. Thus, an appropriate award deserves to be made to the appellant under the head of pain, suffering and permanent disability as a result of the injuries suffered by her. The appellant deserves to be granted a total sum of Rs. 2 lacs under this head. 20. The appellant specifically pleaded that she had to engage an attendant for attending her during the period of her treatment and the requirement of attendant would continue for the rest of her life also. The appellant deserves to be granted a total sum of Rs. 2 lacs under this head. 20. The appellant specifically pleaded that she had to engage an attendant for attending her during the period of her treatment and the requirement of attendant would continue for the rest of her life also. This averment was not controverted by any of the non-claimants, thus, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs is granted to the appellant under this head. 21. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the following calculation and computation deserves to be approved for assessing the quantum of compensation awardable to the appellant. Age of the Applicant as per claim application 45 Years Total Monthly income Rs. 8000/- Rs. 8,000/- 30% Enhancement in the annual income by future prospects applying the principles of Santosh Devi's case. Rs. 8000/- x 30/100 = 2,400/- Rs. 10,400/- Loss of income because of permanent disability @ 80% as held above 80% of 10,400 x 12 = 99,840/- Rs. 99,840 Multiplier to be applied @14 Rs. 13,97,760 Compensation on Account of Pain, Suffering and Mental Agony Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 15,97,760 Compensation for Special Die and treatment undergone for a period of 3 year,s Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 17,47,760 Attendant during the period of treatment and for remainder of life Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 19,47,760 Medical Expenses as awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,57,989/- Rs. 22,05,749 Total compensation awardable Rs. 22,05,749/- ROUND FIGURE Rs. 22,06,000/- 22. The award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified and enhanced in light of the above table. 23. The payment of the original awarded amount shall be made in terms of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, whereas on the enhanced amount, the claimant appellant shall be entitled to an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 24. In order to ascertain that the claimant is benefited to the maximum by the enhancement in the award. The following directions are given for the disbursal of the awarded amount:- (1) 20% of the enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimant in cash. (2) The remaining 80% shall be deposited in fixed deposits in any nationalised bank with a lock in period of 5 years by applying the best available fixed deposit term plan. The interest upon the fixed deposit shall be disbursed to the claimant periodically. (2) The remaining 80% shall be deposited in fixed deposits in any nationalised bank with a lock in period of 5 years by applying the best available fixed deposit term plan. The interest upon the fixed deposit shall be disbursed to the claimant periodically. The banker shall be instructed not to issue any loan against the fixed deposits. (3) If in any emergent condition the claimant requires the modification of the said direction, she shall be at liberty to file a writ petition before this Court for time release of the amount from the fixed deposit/s. 25. Any amount already paid by the Insurance Company under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 or any other amount, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Addl. Dist. Judge (F.T. No. 4) M.A.C.T. Cases, Jodhpur is modified and the appellant is held entitled to the award as indicated above along with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Record be sent back. No. costs.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******