JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.8.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,19,000/- as compensation to the claimant - Khushal Singh for the injuries suffered by him. The respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 have been exonerated and appellant-Insurance Company along with respondents No.5 & 6 have been held liable for payment of compensation. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimant with the averments that on 1.5.1996 at about 3:30 am he along with the driver - Hari Singh was travelling in tanker No. RJ-19-G-0942, wherein, he was engaged as a cleaner, when the said tanker was travelling at Neha Road, Bhimasar Police Station, another truck being driven by respondent - Anar Bhai came from the opposite direction, the driver could not keep control over the truck, which collided with the tanker, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant and on account of the injuries suffered by him both his legs from below the knees were amputed, grafting was done and based on the said averments, a compensation of Rs.28,33,000/- was claimed. 3. Reply to the application was filed by the driver and owner of the tanker contending that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the truck and, therefore, they were not liable for making payment of any compensation. 4. The insurer of the tanker also filed reply and contended that the applicant was driving the tanker at the time of accident without driving licence and accident occurred on account of his own negligence and as the vehicle was being driving without valid permit and effective driving licence, the Insurance Company was not liable. 5. The driver and owner of the truck remained ex-parte. 6. The appellant-insurer of the truck filed reply and contended that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the tanker and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. 7. Based on the averments made by the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. 8. On behalf of the claimant, claimant himself was examined and 26 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents two witnesses-Hari Singh as DW/1 and Anil Kumar Saxena - officer of the appellant-Insurance Company were examined and policy Ex.A/1 was produced. 9. 7. Based on the averments made by the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. 8. On behalf of the claimant, claimant himself was examined and 26 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents two witnesses-Hari Singh as DW/1 and Anil Kumar Saxena - officer of the appellant-Insurance Company were examined and policy Ex.A/1 was produced. 9. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the truck, the plea raised by the appellant-Insurance Company regarding the driver being not in possession of valid driving licence was negated. 10. While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that from document Ex./4 it is apparent that the claimant's both legs from below the knee have been amputed resulting in permanent disablement and artificial limbs have been fixed with which he can move around and can do sitting work and was physically healthy. 11. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.4,000/- towards nursing expenses, Rs.10,000/- for artificial limbs and Rs.25,000/- towards physical and mental stress suffered by him. 12. While calculating the amount of loss of income on account of permanent disablement, the loss of income was taken at Rs.750/- per month and after applying multiplier of 17, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded as compensation and in all a sum of Rs.2,19,000/- along with the interest @ 12% per annum was awarded. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed error in holding the driver of the truck, negligent in driving the vehicle. It was submitted that in the application filed by the claimant, it was specifically averred that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles, however, when the statements were recorded, the claimant alleged that it was only the driver of the truck, who was negligent. As there is difference between pleadings and proof, the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the truck alone was negligent in driving the vehicle. 14. As there is difference between pleadings and proof, the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the truck alone was negligent in driving the vehicle. 14. Submissions were also made in response to the plea raised by learned counsel for the respondent-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and does not call for any interference. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the negligence of the driver of the truck does not call for any interference, inasmuch as, the driver and owner of the truck did not enter into the witness-box and from the cross-examination of the claimant, who appeared in the witness-box and was cross-examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, it cannot be said that the accident occurred on account of negligence on part of the driver of the tanker and, therefore, the finding does not call for any interference. 16. Further submissions were made that though the claimant has not filed any cross-objection, looking to the meagre amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the injuries suffered by the claimant, whereby, both his legs have been amputed, exercising powers under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC, the amount of compensation be enhanced. 17. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Pista & Ors.: 2003 ACJ 1783. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company of the tanker supported the judgment passed by the Tribunal. 19. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. A bare look at the application for compensation filed by the claimant reveals that while indicating in the application regarding the accident which occurred, resulting in permanent disablement, it was indicated that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by drivers of both the vehicles. In the reply filed on behalf of the owner and driver of the tanker, the said allegations were denied. 21. The owner and driver of the truck did not file any reply and the insurer of the truck denied the averments and alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the tanker. 22. In the reply filed on behalf of the owner and driver of the tanker, the said allegations were denied. 21. The owner and driver of the truck did not file any reply and the insurer of the truck denied the averments and alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the tanker. 22. The claimant appeared in the witness-box and in the examination-in-chief gave out the sequence of events, which led to the accident indicating that the tanker was plying on the left side of the road and that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently, which came and struck the tanker resulting in the claimant suffering the injuries and permanent disablement. 23. The said witness was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company and though several questions were put regarding the occurrence of the accident, the speed of the vehicles etc., no question was put regarding the alleged negligence of the driver of the tanker and the said witness was not confronted with the averments made in the application regarding the negligence of both the driver. 24. From the evidence, which came on record, the finding record by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse, inasmuch as, there was no material available on record to support the allegation of either the claimant in the application or the appellant-Insurance Company to come to a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence of driver of the tanker and the finding record by the Tribunal based on the material that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the truck, therefore, he cannot be faulted. 25. In view thereof, insofar as, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned, the same has no substance. 26. Coming to the plea raised by learned counsel for the respondent-claimant that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate and, therefore power Order 41, Rule 33 be exercised in the circumstances. 27. 25. In view thereof, insofar as, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned, the same has no substance. 26. Coming to the plea raised by learned counsel for the respondent-claimant that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate and, therefore power Order 41, Rule 33 be exercised in the circumstances. 27. The claimant claimed his income at Rs.2,000/- per month as cleaner and claimed that on account of the injuries and amputation suffered by him, he has been rendered 90% disabled, the Tribunal did not record any finding disputing the income of the claimant at Rs.2,000/- per month, however, noticing that the percentage of disability has not been indicated, the loss of income was taken at Rs.750/- per month and multiplier of 17 looking to the age of the claimant at 22 years was applied. 28. The loss of income at Rs.750/- appears to be wholly inadequate looking to the nature of work being performed by the claimant i.e. cleaner and the fact that both his legs had been amputed. Merely because of artificial limbs have been fixed, it cannot be said that the claimant would be in a position to perform the duties as a normal human being. 29. The fact that he was otherwise healthy and would be able to do the sitting work cannot be a reason for denying the loss of income for the claimant, which deserves to the enhanced to Rs.1,250/- per month and thereafter after applying the multiplier as adopted by the Tribunal, the compensation deserves to be awarded. 30. In view of the above discussion, while the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, exercising powers under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC, it is directed that the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,24,000/- instead of Rs.2,19,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 31. On the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1,05,000/-, the claimant would be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application i.e. 23rd October, 1996. The amount of enhanced compensation along with the rest of the award, which remained under stay on order passed by this Court be paid to the claimant within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. No order as to costs.