JUDGMENT Lok Pal Singh, J. (Oral) - Both these appeals, under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 , have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/1 st Additional District Judge, Nainital in MAC Case No. 85 of 2010. 2. Facts leading to filing of the present appeals are that on 02.12.2009, at about 7:30 p.m., claimant- Bhuwan Chandra Gunwant along with his friend, namely, Ramesh Chandra Paldiya was waiting to a vehicle to go to Halduchaur, car no. UA04B-2045, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the claimant who sustained serious injuries on his both legs; he was taken to Krishna Nursing Home Haldwani where he got primary treatment, and referred to Bareilly; claimant got admitted at Ishan Hospital Rampur Garden, Bareilly, after operation his both legs were amputated from knee. According to the claimant, he remained hospitalized w.e.f 03.12.2009 to 02.01.2010 and spent about Rs. 7,00,000/- in his treatment. Due to amputation of his both legs, he became 100% disabled. Claimant was engaged in transport business, aged about 38 years and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. FIR dated 15.12.2009 has been lodged against the driver of the car. 3. Owner and driver of the vehicle filed their written statements denying most of the averments of the claim petition. It is stated that his friend, namely, Durga Singh Mehra was driving the vehicle, just to save the buffalo, accident was occurred. It is further stated he himself took injured to the hospital and provide assistance of Rs. 5000/- to him and gave information of the accident at Gadarpur Police Station. It is also stated that driving license of Durga Singh Mehra was valid and the vehicle was plied with relevant papers; vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., w.e.f. 02.09.2009 to 01.09.2010, and, compensation, if any, is liable to be paid by the Insurance Company. 4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. also filed its written statement denying averments of the claim petition. It is stated that claimant has claimed exorbitant amount. It is further stated that burden lies upon the owner of the vehicle to prove that vehicle was plied with valid papers and driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving license. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal formulated the following issues:- 1. It is stated that claimant has claimed exorbitant amount. It is further stated that burden lies upon the owner of the vehicle to prove that vehicle was plied with valid papers and driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving license. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal formulated the following issues:- 1. Whether on 02.12.2009 at about 7:30 p.m, when claimant along with his friend, namely, Ramesh Chandra Paldiya was waiting for a vehicle, about 2 km ahead from Gadarpur at Rudrapur road, then car bearing registration no. UA04B-2045, which was allegedly driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the claimant due to which claimant sustained serious injuries on his legs and after operation both his legs were amputated from the knee and he become 100% disabled? 2. Whether the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the claimant? 3. Whether claimant is entitled for any compensation, if yes, then how much & from whom? 6. In documentary evidence, claimant adduced copy of FIR, G.D., copy of disability certificate, copy of driving license, insurance policy, medical bills etc. Claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Ramesh Chandra Paldiya, Dr. Kaushal Kumar, Ishan Hospital Bareilly, Dheeraj Kumar and Umakant Kafaltiya were respectively examined as P.W.2 to P.W. 5. 7. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 22,30,000/- as compensation against the Insurance Company. 8. Feeling aggrieved by impugned judgment and award appellant-Insurance Company has preferred AO No. 559 of 2014 whereby AO No. 603 of 2014 has been preferred by claimant-injured for enhancement of the compensation. 9. Since, the issue agitated in the appeal is only qua the quantum of compensation, and none of the appellants, be it the claimant- injured or the National India Insurance Co. Ltd., upon whom liability has been fastened, has challenged the impugned judgment and award. The sole controversy before this Court is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award would transpire that the Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,30,000/- under the following heads:- i) Annual income of the claimant Rs. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award would transpire that the Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,30,000/- under the following heads:- i) Annual income of the claimant Rs. 1,22,000/-; ii) Multiplier of 15 has been applied on the age of injured; and iii) Rs. 4,00,000/- each has been awarded towards medical expenses. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the annual income Rs. 1,22,000/- on the basis of the income tax return for computing the compensation and exorbitant amount has been awarded. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant-injured would submit that no amount towards future prospects, pain & suffering and mental agony has been awarded. 12. As far as income of the injured is concerned, he had claimed his monthly income Rs. 12,000/- per month. To prove his income, he has filed copy of income tax return for the Financial Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and also got examined P.W.4 Dheeraj Kumar, Senior Tax Assistant to prove the said income tax returns. Claimant-injured filed his income tax return for the financial year 2008-09 on 20.09.2011, which is prior to the date of incident, which demonstrate that he had paid income tax on an annual income of Rs. 1,22,080/-. The Tribunal relying upon the income tax return filed by the injured for financial year 2008-09 has held the annual income of the claimant as Rs. 1,22,080/-. The Tribunal has rightly held annual income of the injured as Rs. 1,22,080/- on the basis of the income tax return. Income tax return is the best document to prove the income of a person. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed illegality in taking into consideration the said documents. As, the claimant is aged about 38 years on the date of the accident, thus, multiplier of 15 has rightly been applied by the Tribunal. In addition, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 4,00,000/-towards medical expenses, since, the same were proved by the injured by way of oral and documentary evidence. 13. As, the claimant is aged about 38 years on the date of the accident, thus, multiplier of 15 has rightly been applied by the Tribunal. In addition, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 4,00,000/-towards medical expenses, since, the same were proved by the injured by way of oral and documentary evidence. 13. The Honble Apex Court in the catena of judgments has held 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 victims inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed, for the disability caused due to the accident. Admittedly, claimant was a self employed person, but, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future loss, as both the legs of the claimant has been amputated and he become 90% disabled and unable to do work. As appellant is 90% disabled, he would be entitled to be compensated for loss of future prospects in view of Pranay Sethi case. Thus, appellant is entitled for an addition of 40% of the established income. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards pain and suffering and also towards future treatment, as claimant has to spend huge amount to implant artificial limbs after every five years and cost of artificial limbs is about Rs. 3,50,000/- or more 14. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the compensation awarded to the claimants is being reassessed as follows:- Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded 1 Annual income Rs. 1,22,080 2. Future prospects Rs. 48,832 (40% of the income 3. Total income Rs. 1,70,912 4. multiplier 15 5. Annual loss of future income Rs. 25,63,680/- 6. Pain, suffering and loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000/- 7. Medical expenses Rs. 4,00,000/- 8. Future Medical expenses Rs. 5,00,000/- 9. Total compensation awarded Rs. 35,63,680/- 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, impugned judgment and award dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/1 st Additional District Judge, Nainital in MAC Case No. 85 of 2010, is modified to the extent that the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd., shall pay the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 35,63,680/- alongwith 7% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of its realization. Ltd., shall pay the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 35,63,680/- alongwith 7% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of its realization. The amount already paid, if any, by the Insurance Company, shall be adjusted. 16. In view of the above, appeal filed by the claimants stands allowed. Consequently, appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed. 17. Let the statutory amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. Lower court record be sent back. No order as to costs.