JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment /award dated 19.11.2004 passed by MACT, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 644/1998 for enhancement of compensation and also for setting aside the finding by which 50% liability has been fastened on the other involved truck. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that the claimant was Khalasi in Truck No. RJ 14 G-5764 on 13.1.1997, when they reached 8 Km. ahead of Malpura, truck No. HR 38- 2 4951 hit the truck in which the present appellant was travelling. The preset appellant received serious injuries as well as permanent disability. A claim petition has been filed which was allowed partially only 50% liability has been fastened to the involved truck No. RJ 14 G-5764 and amount of compensation has also been assessed on very lower side, hence this appeal. 3. The contention of the appellant is that it is not in dispute that present appellant was Khalasi in Truck No. RJ 14 G-5764 and it has been categorically stated that Ramjilal was negligent and only due to his negligence, the accident has occurred. In FIR this fact has been narrated at the earliest and thereafter investigation, charge sheet has also been filed against only driver of the truck No. RJ 14 G-5764 and court below has categorically held that driver Ramjilal was only negligent but on conjunctures and surmises, he has been absolved from 50% liability. Apart from it, he suffered 39.20% disability, he has suffered fracture of right lower limb but a meager amount of Rs. 75,000/- has been awarded as compensation for his partial permanent disability, hence compensation for disablement may be enhanced.Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that there is no infirmity in the impugned award. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 5. The appellant himself has stated before the court below that he was travelling in the vehicle and Ramjilal was solely responsible for the accident. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 5. The appellant himself has stated before the court below that he was travelling in the vehicle and Ramjilal was solely responsible for the accident. It is true that Ramjilal denied the liability but in the FIR itself, the fact as about the negligence of the truck driver Ramjilal has been mentioned and after investigation, charge sheet has also been filed only against impugned vehicle No. RJ 14 G-5764 and court below has also held that the accident has occurred due to negligence of Ramjilal. Thereafter only on surmises and conjectures and taking note of the fact that it was a head on collision liability has been proportionately divided without any legal basis. 6. The eye-witness has supported the fact that only driver of truck No. RJ 14 G-5764 was negligent and this fact has been further strengthened by the narration in the FIR and result of the investigation, hence the findings of the court below are per verse on the point that accident has occurred due to negligence of the two vehicle and findings in this regard on Issue No.1 are per verse and liable to be set aside and issue No.1 stands decided in favour of appellant that only driver of Truck No. RJ 14 G-5764 was negligent. 7. The contention of the appellant before the court below was that he was Khalasi in the truck and this fact has also get strength from the narration in the FIR itself that at the time of accident, he was in the truck as Khalasi but as regards to his salary no document has been produced. The court below has assessed his income at Rs. 2,000/- and no fault can be found in the assessment but without applying the multiplier method, the loss of income has been assessed. The scientific method of assessing loss of income is multiplier method and taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/- per month which has rightly assessed by the court below, admittedly, the age of the injured was 25 years at the time of the accident and the injured has suffered 39% disability. Hence after applying the multiplier method, the compensation for the partial permanent disability be assessed as 2000x17x12x39%= 1,59,120/-. 8. The other contention of the appellant is that for future treatment, no compensation has been awarded. Hence after applying the multiplier method, the compensation for the partial permanent disability be assessed as 2000x17x12x39%= 1,59,120/-. 8. The other contention of the appellant is that for future treatment, no compensation has been awarded. The court below has considered the fact that the injured has remained under treatment for about four years and for which 50,000/- has been awarded and medical bills have also been reimbursed. No evidence has been produced before the Tribunal that the injured needs any future treatment and for pain and suffering and for day to day difficulties, a fair and reasonable amount has already been awarded, hence no further enhancement is needed on other heads.In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondents are liable to pay the whole claim. The compensation is enhanced to 1,59,120- 75,000 (already awarded by the Tribunal) = Rs. 84,120 for the partial permanent disability. The compensation awarded on other heads is confirmed. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the appellant by the Insurance Company within a period of two months from today alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing appeal.Appeal partly allowed. *******