JUDGMENT : Ritu Bihari, J. By way of this common judgment, two appeals bearing FAO No. 5772 of 2002, titled 'S.P Mittal v. P.K Aggarwal and others' and FAO No.5773 of 2002, titled 'Smt. Manju Aggarwal v. P.K Aggarwal and others' shall be decided. The present appellants have come in the present appeals for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) vide its award dated 26.9.2002. Vide the impugned award the appellants S.P Mittal (in MACT Case No. 182 of 99) and Manju Aggarwal (in MACT Case No. 185 of 99) were awarded compensation of Rs.1,23,840/- and Rs. 1,51,200/- respectively on account of injuries suffered by them in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 4.4.1999. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant S.P Mittal was coming back to Ambala City from Chandigarh on 4.4.1999 by Car No. CH-01M-7567. Smt. Manju Aggarwal and Ms. Nupur Aggarwal were also traveling by the same car. Respondent no.1-P.K Aggarwal was driving the car. At about 3:15 p.m, when they reached near Village Kakru on Chandigarh-Ambala Road, the said car went off the road of its left side. The car struck against a standing tree by the side of the road. The car was damaged extensively and all the occupants of the car including its driver suffered multiple injuries. 3. Injured filed claim petitions under Sections 166 read with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of injuries suffered by them in the accident. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the then learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala: 1. Whether the injured S.P Mittal and Manju Aggarwal sustained multiple and grievous injuries in the road side accident allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of Car No. CH-01M- 7567 by respondent no. 1 as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative then to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the claimants have no locus standi to file the claim petition. OPR. 4. Whether the claimants have no cause of action to file the claim petition ? OPR. 5. Whether the respondent no.1 was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR. 6. Relief. 5. OPP. 3. Whether the claimants have no locus standi to file the claim petition. OPR. 4. Whether the claimants have no cause of action to file the claim petition ? OPR. 5. Whether the respondent no.1 was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR. 6. Relief. 5. The tribunal has returned a finding in favour of the claimants on issue no.1 that the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. This finding has been rightly based on deposition of PW-1 S.P Mittal, PW- 2 Manju Aggarwal and PW-3 Dr. R.K Mehandiratta who had treated the claimants/injured. Surinder Kumar, MHC appeared as RW-1 and brought in the Court DDR register, DDR No.8 dated 14.4.1999 Ex. R- 2. Insurance Policy Ex. R-4 and photocopy of driving licence Ex. R-1 were also tendered into evidence. The insurer had admitted that the car involved in the accident i.e car bearing no. CH-01M-7567 was got insured with them in the name of P.K Aggarwal (respondent no.1). The testimonies of injured witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were sufficient to return the above said finding. Moreover a DDR was got entered by the claimants-injured on 14.4.1999 vide DDR No.8 Ex. R- 2. This finding has been rightly recorded and requires no interference. 6. While deciding compensation on issue no.2 with regard to S.P Mittal, he remained admitted at Mehndiratta Hospital for about 12 days. He had employed one attendant and paid Rs.1000 per month as salary. He employed the attendant for about five months. As per the deposition of PW-3 Dr. R.K Mehnidratta, he had suffered multiple fractures of the ribs on the left side with haemuthorax with fracture pelvis with multiple abrasion skin traction was applied. He was admitted on 4.4.1999 and discharged on 15.4.1999. Discharge slip of S.P Mittal is Ex. P-8 and follow up treatment slip is Ex. P-7, indoor bill is Ex. P-5 and outdoor bill is Ex. P-6. As per the deposition of Dr. D.R Mittal from Mittal Nursing Home, Ambala who appeared as PW-4 and Dr. P.K Nigar, PW-5, the disability suffered by the claimant S.P Mittal was 20%. 7. Pardeep Sharma, Assistant Analytical Chemist, Panchkula appeared as PW-7 and brought in the Court record pertaining to the salary of S.P Mittal injured. It was deposed by him that S.P Mittal worked as Marketing Manager. P.K Nigar, PW-5, the disability suffered by the claimant S.P Mittal was 20%. 7. Pardeep Sharma, Assistant Analytical Chemist, Panchkula appeared as PW-7 and brought in the Court record pertaining to the salary of S.P Mittal injured. It was deposed by him that S.P Mittal worked as Marketing Manager. He remained on leave from 4.4.1999 to 31.12.1999 on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident and his leave was without pay. 8. From the evidence led by the claimant and the testimonies of the witnesses, the compensation payable to the claimant S.P Mittal was assessed as under: Sr. No. Head Amount I Actual medicines expenses Ex. P-5 to Ex.P -11 Rs.8,840.00/- II Disability to the extent of 20% Rs.40,000/- III Loss of Income Rs.20,000/- IV Salary to attendant Rs.5000/- V Special diet, pain and suffering, transportation and misc. expenses etc. Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.1,23,840/- 9. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the compensation requires to be reassessed as Rs.40,000/- given towards disability of 20% was meager. The claimant had remained out of service and a compensation to the extent of 20% disability also requires to be reassessed. He has further argued that the injured was earning Rs.9000/- per month. As deposed by PW-7 Pardeep Assistant Analytical Chemist, he remained on leave w.e.f 4.4.1999 to 31.12.1999. He had brought the salary record and leave record of S.P Mittal Marketing Manager of Scholls Pharma, Panchkula However, in cross-examination this witness stated that he had not brought any ledger salary disbursement register in Court. There was no separate note on the leave application that the leave was being granted without pay. He had brought no evidence to show whether any application for appointment or any appointment letter was issued to S.P Mittal. In the absence of any direct evidence led, the income of the injured S.P Mittal cannot be taken as Rs.9,000/-per month. However, as per deposition of Dr. P.K Nigam, PW-5, the disability suffered by S.P Mittal injured due to the injuries sustained in this accident was assessed at 20%. It has been so stated by the above said Doctor that the patient will have difficulty in walking, running and doing manual work and pain in his knee would increase in old age and the disability towards loss of working capacity was 20%. It has been so stated by the above said Doctor that the patient will have difficulty in walking, running and doing manual work and pain in his knee would increase in old age and the disability towards loss of working capacity was 20%. Hence taking the disability of the whole body as 20% and in the absence of direct evidence of the injured keeping in view that the accident took place on 4.4.1999 Rs.3000/- can be taken as daily wage and 20% loss of income on account of disability. The compensation is hereby reassessed as under: Sr. No. Head Amount Disability to the extent of 20% Rs.79,200/- 1 600x12x11 2 Actual medicine expenses Rs.8840 Loss of income Rs.27,000/- 3. Rs. 3000x9 4. Salary to attendant Rs.10,000/- Special diet, pain and suffering Rs.75,000 5. Transpiration and misc. expenses etc. TOTAL AWARDED COMPENSATION Rs.2,00,040/- ENHANCED COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF (Rs.2,00,040/-)-(Rs.1,23,840/-) = Rs.76,200/- 10. While deciding compensation on issue no.2 with regard to Manju Aggarwal, as per her deposition, she was admitted in Mehndiratta Hospital up to 23.4.1999. From there she was referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi by Dr. Mehndiratta. She remained admitted in the said hospital for a period of two days and then she was taken to Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi for further treatment. She remained admitted up to 29.4.1999. It was further deposed by her that one female attendant was employed for a period of three months and she was paid Rs.2000/- per month as salary. She remained bed ridden for a continuos period of three months after accident. It was further deposed by her that she could not attend to her duties from 4.4.199 to 15.9.1999. She was drawing RS.18,000/- per month as salary. She is lecturer. 11. Dr. P.K Nigam who appeared as PW-5 stated that the disability suffered by Manju Aggarwal injured due to the injuries sustained in this accident was assessed at 35%. 12. Krishan Kumar, Accounts Clerk, DAV College, Ambala City PW-6 brought in the Court record pertaining to the salary of Manju Aggarwaal. It was deposed by him that Manju Aggarwal worked as Lecturer and she was on leave from 4.4.1999 to 15.9.1999. She was drawing Rs.18,000/- salary per month. 13. Hospital documents i.e Ex. P-1 discharge slip from Mehndiratta Hospital and Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-4 follow up treatment cards were also produced on record. It was deposed by him that Manju Aggarwal worked as Lecturer and she was on leave from 4.4.1999 to 15.9.1999. She was drawing Rs.18,000/- salary per month. 13. Hospital documents i.e Ex. P-1 discharge slip from Mehndiratta Hospital and Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-4 follow up treatment cards were also produced on record. Thus from the evidence led corroborated by the testimonies of the witnesses, the Tribunal assessed the compensation as under: Sr. No. Head Amount I Actual medicines expenses and doctor’s fee Rs.5200.00/- II Disability to the extent of 35% Rs.70,000/- III Loss of Income Rs.20,000/- IV Salary to attendant Rs.6000/- V Special Diet pain and suffering transportation and misc. expenses etc. Rs.50,000/- TOTAL Rs.1,51,200/- 14. As per the Orthopaedic Surgeon who was a Member of the Board who had examined Manju Aggarwal, she suffered fracture in left hip joint and will have difficulty in walking sitting squatting and manual work in relation with the whole body and here disability is to the extent of 35% is permanent in nature. 15. Reference can be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (10) SCALE 516 wherein it has been held that the loss of earning capacity is distinct head of claim from disability. Reference can also be made to judgment in the case of Madan Lal Papneja v. State of Haryana and others in FAO No.422 of 1993 dated 12.11.2010, wherein it has been held that loss of earning capacity must in turn be assessed from how the injury would impact him in a job market if he were to take up a job afresh. 16. In view of the above judgments the compensation payable to the claimant Manju Aggarwal is hereby reassessed as under: S.No. Head Amount Disability to the extent of 35% Rs.10,58,400/- 1 6300x12x14 (Multiplier of 14 is applied as she was stated to be 43 years of age) 2. Actual medicines expenses Rs.5200/- 3. Loss of Income Rs.20,000/- 4. Salary to attendant Rs.10,000/- Special diet pain, and suffering Rs.75,000/- 5 transportation and misc. expenses etc. TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED Rs. 11,68,600/- ENHANCED COMPENSATION Rs.11,68,600- Rs.1,51,200/- Rs.10,17,400/- 17. The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. Actual medicines expenses Rs.5200/- 3. Loss of Income Rs.20,000/- 4. Salary to attendant Rs.10,000/- Special diet pain, and suffering Rs.75,000/- 5 transportation and misc. expenses etc. TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED Rs. 11,68,600/- ENHANCED COMPENSATION Rs.11,68,600- Rs.1,51,200/- Rs.10,17,400/- 17. The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 76,200 (In FAO No. 5772 of 2002) and Rs.10,17,400/- (In FAO No.5773 of 2002) shall be payable within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Kumari Kiran through her father Harinarayan v. Sajjan Singh and others, 2015(1) SCC 539 . Remaining conditions of disbursal of amount shall remain unaltered. 18. Accordingly, the award stands modified to the above extent and the present appeals are partly allowed.