JUDGMENT : Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. 1. The claimant-appellant has instituted the present appeal with the prayer for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur, which according to him, is not just, fair and reasonable compensation. 2. Briefly, the skeletal material facts for appreciation and adjudication of the controversy raised are that claimant-appellant while stepping down from the State Roadways Bus fell down on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver on the bus; as a consequence thereof, the rear wheel of the bus ran over his right hand, resulting into 80% of permanent disability. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the appeal, asserted that the claimant-appellant, was an indoor patient for about 40-50 days and was operated four times, for which he incurred a huge monetary expense. 4. Learned counsel further urged that the appellant was a young man of aged 30 years and on account of amputation of his right fore-limb, he also suffered on his marriage prospects for he was a bachelor at the relevant time. 5. Referring to the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210 , learned counsel argued that the award of compensation is deficient for non inclusion of 'future prospects', which ought to have been to the extent of 50% of the income assessed by the Tribunal. Moreover, no compensation has been awarded for 'future treatment' so also for 'loss of amenities'. The compensation is also deficient on account of "pain, suffering and agony' to which the claimant-appellant was subjected for the injury suffered and an amount of Rs. 54,000/- (Rs. Fifty Four Thousand) awarded as compensation is far less because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma (supra), for somewhat similar disabilities to the extent of 80%, allowed Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lacs), on that count. 6. Per contra; Mr. Virendra Singh Yadav, appearing for the respondent-Corporation (RSRTC) while supporting the impugned award of compensation as just and reasonable vehemently argued that the Tribunal on a consideration of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and on a proper analysis, allowed compensation to the extent of injury including the element of permanent disability. The amount of compensation awarded is just and reasonable, and therefore, the appeal for enhancement merits dismissal. 7. The amount of compensation awarded is just and reasonable, and therefore, the appeal for enhancement merits dismissal. 7. Learned counsel further asserted that the doctor was not examined as witness so as to assess the exact extent of disability which has been stated to be 80%. It is further urged that the monthly income as assessed by the Tribunal, to the tune of Rs. 2400/- (Rupees Twenty Four Hundred) in the year 2003, is rather on a higher side, with reference to the daily wages at the relevant time. Therefore, no enhancement is called for on this count as well. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 9. The appellant-claimant stated his monthly income as Rs. 7,000/-, but the Tribunal in absence of any documentary evidence while taking note of the background of the walk of life of the injured as well as the fact that the appellant was a bachelor, at the relevant time, assessed the monthly income as Rs. 2400/-. The respondent-Corporation did not assail the finding and the conclusion on this issue. Hence, the objection pleaded as to the assessment of income is rejected. 10. Indisputably, the appellant suffered injury resulting into amputation of his right fore-limb and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 80% as is evident from the evidence and materials on record. Having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and materials available on record, the Tribunal concluded the accident to be a case of 'contributory negligence' to the extent of 30% on the part of the claimant-appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any discrepancy or perversity in appreciation of evidence while arriving at the conclusion for the purpose of determination to the extent of contributory negligence in the ratio of 30:70. If the bus was brought to stationery position in that event it was not possible for the accident to occur in the manner as deposed by the driver of the bus who appeared as a witness. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the bus was in motion while the claimant-appellant stepped down. Hence, the conclusion of the Tribunal needs no interference on that count. 12. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the bus was in motion while the claimant-appellant stepped down. Hence, the conclusion of the Tribunal needs no interference on that count. 12. I find no illegality in the findings on the issue No. 1 and 2 with reference to contributory negligence. 13. In the case of Sanjay Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land on a survey of earlier opinions with reference to future prospects had held thus: "12. The view taken in Santosh Devi (supra) has been reiterated by a Bench of three Judges in Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others by holding as follows: "8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma case and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. 9. In Sarla Verma case, it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter." 13. Certain parallel developments will now have to be taken note of. There shall normally be no addition thereafter." 13. Certain parallel developments will now have to be taken note of. In Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and Another, a two Judge Bench of this Court while considering the following questions took the view that the issues needed resolution by a larger Bench- "(1) Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act should be scrupulously applied in all the cases? (2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects?" 14. Answering the above reference a three Judge Bench of this Court in Reshma Kumari and Ors. vs. Madan Mohan and Anr. reiterated the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) to the effect that in respect of a person who was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments or who was self-employed the actual income at the time of death should be taken into account for determining the loss of income unless there are extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Though the expression "exceptional and extraordinary circumstances" is not capable of any precise definition, in Shakti Devi vs. New India Insurance Company Limited and Another there is a practical application of the aforesaid principle. The near certainty of the regular employment of the deceased in a government department following the retirement of his father was held to be a valid ground to compute the loss of income by taking into account the possible future earnings. The said loss of income, accordingly, was quantified at double the amount that the deceased was earning at the time of his death. 15. Undoubtedly, the same principle will apply for determination of loss of income on account of an accident resulting in the total disability of the victim as in the present case. Therefore, taking into account the age of the claimant (25 years) and the fact that he had a steady income, as evidenced by the income-tax returns, we are of the view that an addition of 50% to the income that the claimant was earning at the time of the accident would be justified." 14. Applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, the claimant-appellant is entitled to enhancement of the award by 50% of the income assessed on account of 'future prospects'. 15. Applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, the claimant-appellant is entitled to enhancement of the award by 50% of the income assessed on account of 'future prospects'. 15. Accordingly, the award on that count is enhanced (3600 X 12 X 15 X 80/100) = Rs. 5,18,400-1,55,520/- (30% (contributory negligence). The balance amount of enhancement totals to Rs. 3,62,880/- (three lac sixty two thousand eight hundred eighty). 16. On account of 'pain, suffering and agony', the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 54,000/- which appears to be inadequate for what has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma (supra) wherein an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs) was awarded for pain and suffering. The claim, therefore, is enhanced accordingly. 17. In the result, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,46,000/- on that count. 18. For loss of amenities and attendant, no compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. Considering similarity of the facts and materials available on record, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs) would meet the ends of justice on that count. The award stands enhanced to that extent on that count. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the award made by the Tribunal stands enhanced to the extent of Rs. 3,62,880 + 2,46,000 + 2,00,000 = 8,08,880 (Rs. Eight lac eight thousand eight hundred and eighty only), along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition until the payment is realized. The respondent-Corporation shall ensure compliance of this order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.