JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. Questioning the award dated 21.03.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur in Claim Case No.288/1997, this appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of the damages. 2. In nutshell, the factual matrix of the accident are that the appellant while travelling by TATA Siera in midnight of 26th-27th January 1997 sustained injuries when the riding vehicle rammed into a stationary tanker GQC-4201 from behind, which was stationed without reflection of backlight. Drivers of both the vehicles were held equally negligent and the insurance company of both vehicles was same, being United India Assurance Company, as respondent No.3 and 6 and the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 95,000/- with 9% interest. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment in M.A. Suresh v. M.J. Francis & Ors., (2001) ACC 640 (DB) has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error and has passed a wrong award in lower side. The injured was D-category Railway contractor and has sustained permanent disability to the tune of 14%. He had to undergo treatment for more than 6 months and remained hospitalized but the Tribunal has not considered these aspects. The injured appellant was an income tax payee, hence, the claim sought was to be awarded but the Tribunal has wrongly passed impugned award without considering extent of the disability which has constrained the appellant not to work normally for rest of his life. So the appeal be allowed and award be enhanced. 4. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Dadhich learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error and the Tribunal has quantified and awarded just compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, examined the impugned award and material available on record. 6. The claimant-appellant Ajeet Singh aged 38 years has stated that a tanker was stationed in mid of the road without any parking lights and devoid of any red-light reflection. Regarding receiving treatment, the injured has submitted that he was referred to Pali and afterwards he took treatment at Jodhpur and at Jaslok Hospital in Mumbai. He has further stated that he sustained permanent disability, not able to work normally, unable to stand any longer, not able to walk much and unable to drive scooter and has incurred an expenditure of Rs. He has further stated that he sustained permanent disability, not able to work normally, unable to stand any longer, not able to walk much and unable to drive scooter and has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 40,000/- on medical treatment. Doctors opined that the pain is permanent and there is no cure of knee injury. He has further stated to have filed Exhibits 1 and 2, the disability certificates issued by two Doctors and produced Exhibits 3 to 57. 7. Under pleadings, the claimant has been shown to be employed earning Rs. 7500/- per month and an income-tax assessee. Exhibit 18 is a salary certificate showing payment of Rs. 60,000/- per annum towards salary, which is issued by Mr. Dinesh Chandra Gehlot on his letter-head but no evidence other than injured has come forward to establish the truthfulness of this certificate. Form No.2A, copy of which is placed on record, is income-tax return acknowledgement of assessment year 1997-98, which shows salary of Rs. 45000/-, though there is no certified copy filed on the record. Despite, in this factual aspect if the income tax return Form No.2A is taken to be a true paper even then the annual salary is of Rs. 45000/- and monthly salary comes to the tune of Rs. 3750/- because the annual income shown in this document is Rs. 45000/- per annum. Exhibit One, disability certificate issued by Goyal Hospital and Research Center, Jodhpur on 15th July 1997 indicates because of left knee injury, a permanent disability of 10% whereas the Orthopedic Research & Rehabilitation Center, MG Hospital, Jodhpur's certificate issued on 06.03.2000 authenticates the disability in relation to body according to composite schedule to be of 14%. 8. In Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and others, AIR 2015 SC 694 Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing earlier judgment in Subulaxmi v. M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2012) 10 SCC 177 in para 8 has observed as follows: "5. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts as have been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore, first we shall advert to the issue whether the High Court was justified in awarding compensation on a singular head relating to permanent disability and loss of future earning. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts as have been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore, first we shall advert to the issue whether the High Court was justified in awarding compensation on a singular head relating to permanent disability and loss of future earning. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2012 (10) Scale 516 , after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh, (1990) 3 SCC 723 and B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (2011) 6 SCC 420 , this Court expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one head relates to the impairment of person's capacity and the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2012 ACJ 191 : AIR 2012 SC (Civ)383 : 2012 AIR SCW 361 wherein it has been laid down thus:- "The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score is not sustainable." Likewise, in para 11 of this judgment, while referring to judgment in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed: "5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. " 9. In AIR 2014 SC 736 , Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited & anr., Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the disability of children has held: "12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs. 3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs. 4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs. 5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs. 6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%. Appellant had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months causing...." 10. Several treatment prescriptions which have been filed by the appellant-claimant are issued from Jaslok Hospital and another Doctor of Mumbai and mainly relates to Sumerpur, Jodhpur, ASMI Hospital, Mumbai, the journey tickets from Jaipur to Mumbai and Jodhpur to Jaipur have also been filed. All these documents relating to treatment are enough to disclose the pain and suffering of the appellant and efforts to get himself treated from one medical center to another. All these documents relating to treatment are enough to disclose the pain and suffering of the appellant and efforts to get himself treated from one medical center to another. It has also been observed by the claimant in his statement that he is still undergoing treatment. The extent of disability is very much candid from the aforesaid elucidation. 11. In totality of the discussion dealt above, this Court is of the view that the impugned award suffers from non-appreciation of evidence and awarding of low damages. Damages must always be correlated with the damage. It is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court that accidental damages are not a bonanza but just and equitable damage must be awarded to undone the loss suffered by the victim. 12. In view of the aforesaid deliberation and discussion and taking guidance from several law as laid down by the Apex Court as well as discussed above, this Court is of the view to enhance the award herein under, to which the appellant-claimant appears to be entitled to receive: S. No. Particulars Compensation Amount 1. Disability to the whole body to the tune of 14%, causing inconvenience, discomfort, loss of enjoyment Rs. 80,000/- 2. Loss of income as a result of 14% whole body disability on annual income of Rs. 45000/- comes to Rs. 3214.28, rounded off to Rs. 3214; injured being 36 years of age at the time of accident, by applying multiplier of 14 thus is entitled to get sum of Rs. 44,996/- towards this annual loss of income Rs. 44,996/- 3. Treatment-medicine (Rs.15000/- towards already spent amount on treatment and Rs. 5000/- for further treatment) Rs. 20,000/- 4. Conveyance Rs. 5000/- 5. attendant Rs. 5000/- Total Rs. 1,54,996/- 13. The Tribunal has already awarded an interest of 9% on the impugned award, which appears to be just, hence, this needs no interference. 14. Therefore, the impugned award dated 18.04.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in Claim Case No.89/1997 is modified as above. The appellant-claimant will be entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 1,54,996/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition. Interim compensation or any amount deposited earlier is to be adjusted towards final sum of compensation. The appellant-claimant will be entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 1,54,996/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition. Interim compensation or any amount deposited earlier is to be adjusted towards final sum of compensation. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest as decided aforesaid within two months from the date of this judgment. Appellant is free to receive the amount of compensation from the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.