JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Both the afore FAOs, arise, from a award pronounced, by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV), Shimla, H. P., upon, MACT Petition RBT No. 112/-S/2 of 2014, and, the respectively aggrieved therefrom, the claimant, and, the insurer, respectively raised contention(s) therein, vis-a-vis, the amount of compensation determined therein, warranting enhancement, and, reduction. Since, obviously both the afore FAOs, stand directed against a common award, hence, both are amenable for rendition of a common verdict thereon. 2. The learned counsel, appearing for the insurer of the offending vehicle, does not, contest the validity, of, affirmative findings returned, (a) upon, the issue appertaining to the relevant accident, being a sequel of rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by its driver, namely, Vishal Shankra, and, (b) nor he contests, the, fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. In sequel to the injuries entailed, upon, the claimant, 90% disability as encapsulated, in, the apposite disability certificate, embodied in Ex.PW6/M, hence stood encumbered, upon, the claimant. Dr. Lokinder Sharma, who stepped into the witness box, as PW-7, (a) has, in his deposition comprised in his examination-in-chief, made graphic echoings, qua with the passage of time, the, physical condition of the claimant, rather, than improving would deteriorate, and, he has further voiced therein, that, the claimant would be requiring regular follow up treatment. He has also in his deposition, echoed, qua the disability would impede the claimant, in his enjoying hence connubial bliss. The insurer has not contested the factum, that, the disability, certificate borne in Ex.PW6/M, being connected with the injuries, hence, suffered, in the relevant accident, by the claimant. However, the learned counsel for the insurer has contended, with much vigour before this Court, (i) that the afore echoings, borne in the deposition of PW-7, who authored Ex.PW6/M, coming under an eclipse, (ii) given RW-2, an Investigator appointed by the Insurer, for determining the physical condition, of the claimant, after interacting with the claimant, his preparing CD, borne in Ex.RW2/A, and, also with his in consonance therewith, rendering, a, deposition qua his, at the relevant time, hence noticing the petitioner/claimant's movement of limbs, being free from any hindrance, (iii) and, also with RW-4, (Dr. Jabon Pramodh Kumar), in his deposition comprised in his examination-in-chief, testifying, qua a person, suffering from quardi paralegia rather being unable to move his four limbs, i.e. both hands and both legs, and, with his further testifying, that, on his watching, the CD, borne in Ex.RW2/A, his noticing that the claimant, is, standing with help of his hands, and, his also noticing, in, the CD that the claimant is sitting with the help of his hands, (iv) thereupon, the per centum of disability pronounced in Ex.PW6/M, being amenable for discarding, and, also hence no invincible conclusion being formable (a) qua any permanent loss of enjoyment of life, hence, besetting the claimant; (b) or any permanent loss of income to the claimant, from his purported avocation, also being beset upon him, (c) and, nor permanent loss of enjoyment of connubial bliss, rather also being encumbered, upon, him, hence compensation as assessed upon the claimant, rather warranting reduction. However, the afore evidence, does not, have the apt befitting effect, for, hence repulsing the pronouncement(s), occurring in Ex.PW6/M, (d) given RW-2 in his cross-examination, making an echoing, that, his not holding, a, MBBS degree, and, with his also making, an, articulation qua, a, patient afflicted with quardic paraplegia, being hindered or precluded, to perform day to day activities, except with the help, of attendants, (e) and, further with PW-4, in his cross-examination, admitting that Ex.PW6/M, stands issued by the Medical Board, as per the norms, and, his also admitting, that, a patient of quadriplegia, can have sensation in his limbs, but, he cannot move them, (f) and, with RW4 thereafter admitting, that the if, there were chances improvement, in the condition of the claimant, rather only, a, temporary disability certificate, would stand issued, than, a permanent disability certificate. Consequently, the further effect, thereof, is that rather there being, a, total impairment of the limbs of the claimant, and, hence concomitant loss of enjoyment of life, and, permanent loss of income, permanent loss of enjoyment, of, marital bliss, rather besetting him (g) thereupon, in the learned tribunal hence meteing 10% deductions, vis-a-vis, the loss of earning capacity, vis-a-vis, the hitherto income derived by the claimants, as a class-C contractor, or as agriculturist, rather is, amenable for interference. 4. 4. The learned counsel appearing, for the insurer, (i) does not contest the factum of the claimant, prior to the befallment of the disability, upon, him, being an enlisted class-C contractor with the HPPWD, factum whereof, is, pronounced in the deposition of PW-8. (ii) Though, the petitioner/claimant, has contended, that, he was drawing an income of Rs.65,000/- per month, from, his avocation. However, the learned tribunal, in respect of the afore avocation, and, on anvil of Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/J, has determined, qua his apposite income therefrom, being pegged in a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the afore exhibits respectively, pronounce qua the works awarded to the claimants rather standing respectively comprised, in, a sum of Rs.3,75,215/-, Rs.32,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, Rs.45,600, Rs.61,600/-, Rs.26,950, Rs.24,000/-, Rs.2,40,000 and Rs.2,40,000/-. Even though, the awarding of the afore works, hence, occur in close proximity to the accident, and, may constrain this Court, to hold qua the claimant, hence, earning a handsome amount, from his avocation, as, an enlisted Class-C contractor, with the HPPWD department, (a) yet with the afore exhibits rather disclosing the afore awarded works, being comprised in sums of money, lesser than the per mensem income as pleaded, by the claimant, to, stand reared by him, as, an enlisted Class-C contractor, (b) hence it was unbefitting to the learned tribunal, to hold, that, the claimant, is, deriving a sum of Rs.20,000/- per mensem, as an enlisted Class-C contractor, with, the HPPWD department. Nonetheless, it is contended by the learned counsel, for the claimant, that with no evidence hence coming on record, that, during the period of his being, enlisted as a Class-C contractor with the HPPWD department, his being black listed, thereupon, he would in future assuredly stand enlisted, as, a Class-A contractor, and, stand awarded works, holding a sum higher than the one in respect whereof, he stood awarded works, as disclosed in Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/J. However, the afore contention, remains in the realm of conjectures, presumptions, and, assumption, and, it cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is to be concluded, that, the claimant, hence, reasonably deriving an income of Rs.5000/- per month from his avocation, as an enlisted Class-C contractor, and, qua therewith given his being incapacitated, by, perennial disability, to, rear it, hence his being recompensed. 5. Consequently, it is to be concluded, that, the claimant, hence, reasonably deriving an income of Rs.5000/- per month from his avocation, as an enlisted Class-C contractor, and, qua therewith given his being incapacitated, by, perennial disability, to, rear it, hence his being recompensed. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended with much vigour, that, in consonance with the verdict, pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , (i) even with respect, to, a person employed in a non government organization, and, vis-a-vis, the self employed person, the meteing(s), of hikes towards future prospects, in the relevant income, is, enjoined to be meted, (i) thereupon, the meteing of hikes, towards, future prospects also being meteable to the claimant, who was, at the relevant time, engaged as a Class-C, contractor, and, was also deriving income, from his horticultural and agricultural avocations, as evident, from, his uncontrovertedly, hence, holding five bighas of land, whereon, he has reared an apple orchard, (ii) and, his also making disclosure in his examination-in-chief, qua, his rearing an income of Rs. four lacs therefrom. However, the afore contention cannot be accepted, given, the meteing of hikes towards future prospects, being only, vis-a-vis, employees in a government sector, or, in a non government sector, or, vis-a-vis, self employed person, (iii) or, vis-a-vis, entrepreneurs rearing settled, and, secure incomes, and also all, the afore employment(s) or entrepreneurship(s), necessarily enjoin eruption(s) of certain income(s) therefrom, or eruption(s) of certain income(s), from, any afore employment(s), also, holding an aura of continuity in future. Since, the awarding of works to the claimant, as an enlisted class-C contractor, and, his rearing income, from his orchard, comprised in a sum of Rs. Since, the awarding of works to the claimant, as an enlisted class-C contractor, and, his rearing income, from his orchard, comprised in a sum of Rs. Four lacs per mensem, are both entrenched with an aura of uncertainty, (iv) AND, the rearings, of, income, from, the apple orchard owned by the claimant, is, also subject, to, variations, rather is dependent, upon, vagaries, of, nature (v) thereupon, when the afore hitherto sources, of, incomes hence cannot be concluded to satiate the afore parameters, applicable, to certain, and, settled incomes, reared from, a partnership firm, or from a private limited company, nor when the afore sources can be concluded, to, fall within the category, of, employment, (vi) thereupon, it would be unbefitting to conclude, that, there would be any accretions, in the income(s) reared therefrom, nor it can be concluded, that, it being appropriate, to mete hikes towards future gains, if any, thereto. 6. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer has contended, with much vigour while relying, upon, a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case titled as State of Haryana and another vs. Jasbir Kaur and others, reported in 2003 ACJ 1800 , that, despite 100% disability entailed, upon, the claimant, with, concomitant permanent loss of income, to the claimant, from, his avocation as an horticulturist, and, as an agriculturist, (i) nonetheless, with the land whereon, the, apple orchard exists, yet remaining intact, and, rather it being amenable, for rearing apple crops thereon, rather by engagement of persons, thereupon, a sum of Rs.12,500/- per mensem, assessed as loss of agricultural income, does rather warrant interference. The relevant paragraph No.8, of, the afore verdict, stands extracted hereinafter:- “8. It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal's decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was placed before the former to prove as to what was the income. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants, there was not even any material adduced to show type of land which the deceased possessed. The matter can be approached from a different angle. The land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture. The matter can be approached from a different angle. The land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered. Furthermore, there was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the figure of Rs.4500 per month. No reason has been indicated to arrive at this figure. In the light of what has been discussed above about "just compensation" the income cannot be estimated without any material to justify the estimation. In the normal course, we would have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. But considering the fact that one young person lost his life, and the matter was pending before the Tribunal and the High Court for some years, we feel it appropriate to take all relevant factors into consideration, and decide the matter. Gauzing the relevant aspects, noted above, the monthly income is fixed at Rs.3000/- per month, and after deducting Rs.1,000/- for personal expenses, financial contribution so far as the claimants are concerned is fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month. Worked out on the basis of multiplier of 18, the compensation is fixed at Rs.4,32,000/-. The amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is not interfered with and thus the total compensation comes to Rs.4,34,000/-. The rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum as fixed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court is appropriate, and does not need any alteration. After adjusting the sum which was deposited pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.12.2001, the balance amount along with interest shall be deposited within three months from today before the Tribunal. On the deposit being made along with the amount already deposited, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs shall be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of the claimants and a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Smt. Baldev Kaur, mother of the deceased. They shall be entitled to draw interest on the deposit, which shall be re-deposited for further terms of five years. They shall be entitled to draw interest on the deposit, which shall be re-deposited for further terms of five years. In case of urgent need, it shall be open to the claimants to move Tribunal for release of any part of the amount in deposit. The Tribunal shall consider the request for withdrawal and shall direct withdrawal in case of an urgent need and not otherwise of such sum as would meet the need. It shall be specifically indicated to the Bank where the deposits are to be made that no advance or withdrawal of any kind shall be permitted without the order of the Tribunal. It shall be open to the claimants to approach the Tribunal for variance of the order relating to deposit in fixed deposit, if any other scheme would fetch better returns and also would provide regular and permanent income.” The afore decision would be applicable hereat, only when, the claimant, was hitherto evidently hence personally performing, the apt agricultural work, (I) and, upon entailment, of, a disability, upon, him, his, being constrained, to engage hence attendants or supervisors hence for the relevant purpose. Moreover, in the afore extracted portion thereof, no, rigorous principle hence stands propounded qua the learned tribunals, despite, a 100% disability, being encumbered, upon, the claimant, with a concomitant 100% loss of income, from, his agricultural, and, horticultural pursuits, and, with the land yet remaining intact, for rearing crops therefrom, hence, it being unbefitting, to, award compensation, to, the claimant towards loss of income, from, horticultural or agricultural sources, (ii) rather when it impliedly stands propounded therein, that, in the absence of the disabled claimant, hence, personally attending, the, apt horticultural or agricultural work, his, in the face of the disability encumbered upon him, being led to engage other persons, to perform, the apt agricultural work, and, the expenses incurred by him, for his engaging, other persons, being rather befittingly assessable towards loss, of, agricultural income, arising from, a, 100% disability being encumbered, upon, the claimant. Consequently, when in concurrence, with the latter parameter, hence, the claimant in his cross-examination, rather denied the suggestion qua his not engaging attendants, for, attending the apt agricultural or horticultural works, upon, his land, and, his paying them Rs.6000, to, Rs.8000 per mensem, (iii) AND, further, with the claimant in his deposition comprised in his examination-in-chief, making echoings qua, a, caretaker standing engaged by him, on a monthly salary, and, the insurer, omitting to subject him to cross-examination, qua the afore facet, (iv) thereupon, it is to be concluded, that, in the face of the disability encumbered, upon, the claimant, he is defraying to the afore two attendants, a, sum of Rs.15,000/- per mensem. 7. However, the claimant, in his deposition omitted to disclose that prior to his being encumbered with 100% disability, his personally, hence performing the relevant avocation, of, agriculture or horticulture, (i) thereupon, it stands concluded, that, even prior to the relevant mishap, he, was engaging hence labourers, for doing the relevant works, and, when he further discloses, that, thereafter also his engaging attendants, for doing, the relevant works, (ii) AND with his disclosing, in his, testification, that, he was drawing an income of Rs. four lacs per annum, from, his orchard, hence, without his producing any record or bills personifying, qua the apposite sale proceeds rather carrying sums equivalent thereto, hence, after deducting, all the relevant expenditures, rather it deemed fit to infer qua his drawing, an, income of Rs.2 lacs per annum, from, his orchard. 7. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed, and, the impugned award is modified, and, it is held, that, the appellant, shall be entitled, to compensation under different heads, details whereof, are enunciated hereinafter:- Head Calculation Total Compensation on account of pain and suffering As awarded by the learned tribunal Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability Rs.5000 (monthly income of the claimant from his avocation as Class-c contractor) x 12 x 15 Rs.9,00,000/- Compensation on account of expenditure on medicines As awarded by the learned tribunal Rs.16,00,000/- Compensation on account of Hospitalization charges As awarded by the learned tribunal Rs.28,000/- Compensation on account of attendant charges during hospitalization As awarded by the learned tribunal. Rs.30,000/- Compensation on account of future attendant charges As awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs.24,00,000/- Compensation on account of future medical expenses As awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs.9,00,000/- Compensation on account of amenities and loss of expectation of life As awarded by the learned tribunal Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of enjoyment of connubial bliss Rs.3,00,000/- Loss of Agricultural income/ labour charges for performing the agricultural work Rs.15,000/-x12x15 Rs,27,00,000/- Total Rs,90,58,000/- 8. Consequently, the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to defray to the claimant total compensation of Rs.90,58,000 (Rs. Ninety lacs, fifty eight thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit thereof, within a period of three months from today. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.