ORDER : 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the claimant, who has filed a petition, seeking compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has claimed that he has suffered injury and permanent physical disablement of 70 % due to amputation of his thigh above knee joint. The injury has been sustained on 26.02.2002 at about 8.15 am at Asantari Ghati, P.S. Tandwa, District – Chatra. The injury is due to collision between two buses bearing Registration No.BR-13P-0191, in which the claimant was travelling, and another bus bearing Registration No. BR-13O-9292. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company is concerned with bus bearing Registration No.BR-13O-9292, who is respondent no. 3 and the owner. Owner of another bus bearing Registration No. BR-13P-0191 is respondent no.2 and his Insurance Company is Oriental Insurance Company, who is respondent No.4. 4. The learned Claim Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led before him, has assessed the loss of earning and accordingly has granted claim to the tune of Rs. 11,81,000/- with interest @ 9 per cent simple interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. The contributory negligence of both the bus has been taken into account and 50% compensation has been attributed to each of the bus. So far as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned i.e. the owner of the bus and the Insurance Company, they have accepted the award and payment has already been made to the claimant. 6. The appellant is the Insurer of bus bearing registration No. BR.13O-9292 (Respondent no. 3). So far as the owner of the bus is concerned, no challenge has been thrown, but the Insurance Company has challenged the award by filing the present appeal taking two plea (1) that no future prospect is payable in the injury cases (ii) the income of Rs.5,000/- per month has been taken without any cogent evidence. 7. The details of fact are not being given as only upon two grounds, the present appeal has been preferred. Rest of the fact are not in dispute, so this Court is not going in detail of the case. 7. The details of fact are not being given as only upon two grounds, the present appeal has been preferred. Rest of the fact are not in dispute, so this Court is not going in detail of the case. So far as issue of future prospect is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable, in view of the latest judgment, as reported in the case of New India Insurance Company Limited vs. Gajender Yadav and Ors. (2018) 11 SCC 630 . In the said judgment, the Apex Court, taking clue from Sarla Verma’s case, component of future prospect has been granted, while calculating compensation amount. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, the contention raised by the appellant is not tenable and accordingly, the same is rejected. 8. So far monthly income, which has been taken as Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, it is admitted fact that the claimant was vegetable seller and cultivator. He has claimed income as Rs.6,000/- per month and in support of his claim, he has produced one oral witness namely, Rameshwar Mahto (C.W.3) but no documentary evidence has been produced. 9. Counsel for the appellant submits that in absence of any cogent evidence, the income of Rs.5,000/- which has been taken into consideration by the claim tribunal is excessive. 10. Counsel for the claimant has relied upon paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 10 of the judgment reported in the case of Syed Sadiq and Ors. vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited (2014)2 SCC 735 , which are quoted herein below:- 7. Further, the appellant claims that he was working as a vegetable vendor. It is true that a vegetable vendor might not require mobility to the extent that he sells vegetables at one place. However, the occupation of vegetable vending is not confined to selling vegetables from a particular location. It rather involves procuring vegetables from the wholesale market or the farmers and then selling it off in the retail market. This often involves selling vegetables in the cart which requires 100% mobility. But even by conservative approach, if we presume that the vegetable vending by the appellant claimant involved selling vegetables from one place, the claimant would require assistance with his mobility in bringing vegetables to the marketplace which otherwise would be extremely difficult for him with an amputated leg. This often involves selling vegetables in the cart which requires 100% mobility. But even by conservative approach, if we presume that the vegetable vending by the appellant claimant involved selling vegetables from one place, the claimant would require assistance with his mobility in bringing vegetables to the marketplace which otherwise would be extremely difficult for him with an amputated leg. We are required to be sensitive while dealing with manual labour cases where loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood. Yet, considering that the appellant claimant is still capable to fend for his livelihood once he is brought in the marketplace, we determine the disability at 85% to determine the loss of income. 8. The appellant claimant in his appeal further claimed that he had been earning Rs 10,000 p.m. by doing vegetable vending work. The High Court however, considered the loss of income at Rs 3500 p.m. considering that the claimant did not produce any document to establish his loss of income. It is difficult for us to convince ourselves as to how a labour involved in an unorganised sector doing his own business is expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. In this regard, this Court, in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., has held as under: (SCC pp. 242-43, paras 13-15) “13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a coolie and was earning Rs 4500 per month at the time of the accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs 3000 only on the assumption that the wages of a labourer during the relevant period viz. in the year 2004, was Rs 100 per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though the Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the court nor did it repudiate the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning to be a sum of Rs 3000 per month. Secondly, the appellant was working as a coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning to be a sum of Rs 3000 per month. Secondly, the appellant was working as a coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. 14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 15. In the present case, appellant was working as a coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of a labourer was between Rs 100 to Rs 150 per day or Rs 4500 per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs. 4500 to Rs 3000 per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs 4500.” 10. Further, it is evident from the material evidence on record that the appellant claimant was 24 years old at the time of occurrence of the accident. It is also established on record that he was earning his livelihood by vending vegetables. The issue regarding calculation of prospective increment of income in the future of self-employed people, came up in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein this Court has held as under: (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 14-18) “14. It is also established on record that he was earning his livelihood by vending vegetables. The issue regarding calculation of prospective increment of income in the future of self-employed people, came up in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein this Court has held as under: (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 14-18) “14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in para 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naïve to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. 15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put in extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. 16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that the salary of a Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lakh. 17. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that the salary of a Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lakh. 17. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganised sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the government employees and those employed in private sectors, but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching clothes. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, etc. 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of para 24 of Sarla Verma judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes the victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.” Therefore, considering that the appellant claimant was self-employed and was 24 years of age, we hold that he is entitled to 50% increment in the future prospect of income based upon the principle laid down in Santosh Devi case”. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant while referring to paragraph Nos. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant while referring to paragraph Nos. 7, 8 and 10 of above judgment, has submitted that while dealing with the case of Vegetable Seller, the Apex Court has laid down the principle for considering the criteria of income, reasonable income has been taken as Rs.4,500/-per month. In the fact of that case, the income as assessed by the tribunal was Rs.3000/- which has been enhanced by the Apex Court to Rs.4,500/-. 12. On the strength of the above judgment of the Apex Court, counsel for the claimant has submitted that since the Claim Tribunal has taken monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-is not excessive rather it is reasonable and any interference at this stage will cause undue injustice to the claimant, as he has lost one of his legs, which has been imputed above knee. 13. Taking totality of the fact, this Court feels that the monthly income, which has been taken as Rs. 5,000/- per month, is reasonable and not excessive and hence, I do not find any ground for interfering in the award passed by the learned Claim Tribunal. 14. In view of the above discussion, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant, regarding future prospect and monthly income are rejected. 15. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.