JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the appellant-claimant against the award dated 01.10.2002, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nathdwara (afterwards referred as Tribunal') in MAC No.62/2002 (168/2000) whereby learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- as compensation money. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a road accident took place on 09.10.1999, in which claimant Rajendra Singh sustained many injuries; injured was going to Kothariya on his motorcycle, near bus stand Nathdwara, offending Truck bearing registration NO.RJ.13.G.0830 hit the motorcycle of the injured. A claim petition was filed by the injured on 06.06.2000 against driver, owner and Insurance Company of the Truck. After due inquiry, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- as compensation in the following term:- For injuries and permanent disability Rs. 50,000/- For pain & suffering and nutritious diet Rs. 20,000/- For Transportation Rs. 10,000/- For Medical Expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- Other Loss Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 2,85,000/- 3. Not satisfied with the quantum of award, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries on his left leg, jaw and nose, for which, Medical Board has assessed 40% permanent disability. Due to injuries sustained by him, he cannot walk properly and is unable to drive motor-cycle; his capacity to earn money has also been reduced substantially. Before the said accident, he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, regarding which, he has placed on record income tax return. 5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal without applying multiplier has assessed the loss of income as Rs.50,000/- only, which is not justified. 6. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and Ors: Civil Appeal No.735/2020: (2020) 4 SCC p.413, learned counsel submitted that as per the income shown in the income tax return and by applying the multiplier of 16 prescribed for the age group of 31 to 35 years, adequate compensation should be awarded to the appellant. It was further contended that for the injuries sustained in the accident, treatment is continuing, for which, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount as also in the head of loss of future amenities in life. It was further contended that for the injuries sustained in the accident, treatment is continuing, for which, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount as also in the head of loss of future amenities in life. Compensation towards loss of earning during the period of treatment, expenses incurred towards attendant charges have also not been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 7. It was also contended that the statement made by the claimant-appellant in examination-in-chief regarding his income has not been rebutted during cross-examination; mental pain and agony has also not been compensated properly. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which should be enhanced to 12% per annum. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in the present case, there is no necessity to award any amount for the loss of future amenity in life. Claimant does not require any further treatment. The victim sustained grievous injuries for which, he can be compensated as per the RSLSA guidelines. 9. In written submissions filed by learned counsel for the respondent, it was submitted that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kajal (supra) is not applicable in view of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case. The said judgment essentially speaks about peculiar facts of the said case of victim of younger age and other family circumstances. 10. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalan D. @ Lal and Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd: Civil Special Appeal No.2855/2020 reported in (2020) 9 SCC 805 , learned counsel contended that judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kajal's case is distinguishable to the facts of present case. 11. As per the Medical Board certificate (Ex.216), produced by claimant during the trial, the Medical Board was of the opinion that Rajendra Singh has 40% permanent disability due to injuries sustained in the accident. As per report of Medical Board it was found that:- "We certify that on 25.10.2000 Rajendra Singh appeared before the Medical Board and gave us history of Road Traffic Accident on 09.10.99 having sustained multiple injuries with allusion injury in ankle and heel, operated at Ahmedabad three times. Grafting also done with fixation of pin, subluxation ramus, left side mandible fracture, both maxilla fracture, ethmoidal bone faciomaxillary soft injury, fracture crown of front teeth of both jaw. Grafting also done with fixation of pin, subluxation ramus, left side mandible fracture, both maxilla fracture, ethmoidal bone faciomaxillary soft injury, fracture crown of front teeth of both jaw. Now the patient complains headache, scars on face, ankle and heel pain and difficulty in walking, severe stiffness left ankle and shortening of left heel with discharging sinus heel and ankle, painful walking, difficulty in chewing and mastication. On examination it was found that pus discharging sinus, left ankle and on heel, severe stiffness, left ankle, scar on right chin, on face and below lower lip, no heel soft tissue of heel missing left foot with pus discharging sinus. Painful walking, mouth-opening. Opinion: On examination the Board has the opinion that the above mentioned person has 40% (Forty percent) permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident." 12. Rajendra Singh (P.W.I) in his statement on oath stated as under:- He further stated that:- 13. Above statement in chief has not been rebutted in cross-examination. No evidence has been produced by the respondent, hence, it is clear that due to injuries, particularly, the injury in left ankle, permanent disability has been caused to the claimant, which is assessed by Medical Board as 40%. 14. As per the statement of claimant, claimant was doing business of marble on commission basis, selling fish and was also working on farm house, from which, he was earning Rs.20,000/-per month. Claimant further stated that due to injuries sustained in the accident, now, he is not able to do business and also unable to drive motor-cycle. With regard to income of the claimant, income tax return of a financial year i.e. 1988-89 has been produced; according to which, income other than agricultural income was shown as Rs.59,760/-. Though, agricultural income has also been shown in the income tax return, but evidence regarding availability of land has not been produced. 15. Learned Tribunal has ascertained income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month. The conclusion of the learned Tribunal is justified. There is no cogent evidence on record to assume that claimant was earning more than Rs.5,000/- per month. As per income tax return also, in that particular year, he earned Rs.59,760 from his business. 16. Regarding impact of disability on future income, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors : Civil Appeal No.8981/2010, observed as under:- "8. As per income tax return also, in that particular year, he earned Rs.59,760 from his business. 16. Regarding impact of disability on future income, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors : Civil Appeal No.8981/2010, observed as under:- "8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567 )." 17. Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567 )." 17. Coming to the facts of present case, looking to the nature of injury sustained by the claimant, the nature of work and income of the claimant, this Court is of the opinion that permanent disability would not affect future earning of the claimant to the extent of 40%. Keeping in view the statement of the claimant, opinion of the Medical Board and other evidence on record, loss of future earning is assessed as 20% of the income of claimant. 18. There is no dispute regarding age of the appellant; as per the claim petition, the date of birth of appellant is 07.06.1968 and hence, on the date of accident i.e. 09.10.1999, claimant was more than 30 years old. As per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), for the age group of 31-35 years, the multiplier of 16 is applicable. 19. Regarding compensation in the head of future treatment, record reveals that the last prescription slip is of year 2000 and afterwards no prescription or bill for medical expenses are available. In the absence of any evidence on this count, no money can be awarded for future medical expenses. 20. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly, looking to the nature of injury sustained by the claimant, there is no basis to award any money for the loss of amenities in life. The facts in the matter of Kajal (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kajal's case observed that a young girl sustained grievous brain injury, on account of which, she became 100% disabled. 21. It is true that learned Tribunal has not awarded any money in the head of expenses towards attendant and loss of earning during the period of treatment, for which reasonable amount should be awarded. 22. As per discharge card (Ex.213) submitted by the appellant, he remained hospitalized from 26.11.1999 to 04.12.1999 for nine days. 23. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for expenses relating to treatment on the basis of bill, hence, there is no ground to enhance money in this head. 24. 22. As per discharge card (Ex.213) submitted by the appellant, he remained hospitalized from 26.11.1999 to 04.12.1999 for nine days. 23. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for expenses relating to treatment on the basis of bill, hence, there is no ground to enhance money in this head. 24. On the basis of above discussion and evidence available on record, claimant is entitled for compensation in the manner enumerated below:- Loss of income Rs.5000 X 12 X 20/100 = Rs. 12000/- 12,000X16 = 1,92,000/- Rs. 1,92,000/- Expenses relating to treatment as assessed by Tribunal Rs. 2,00,000/- Transportation Rs. 10,000/- Nourishing Diet Rs. 5,000/- Attendants and misc. expenses Rs. 10,000/- Loss of earnings during the period of treatment Rs. 10,000/- Compensation for pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 4,37,000/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,85,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 1,52,000/- 25. In view of the above, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 1,52,000/-, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition. 26. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 01.10.2002 is modified to the extent that the claimant would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,37,000/- instead of Rs.2,85,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of compensation, looking to the present rate of interest, as per the present guidelines of RBI, the appellant-claimant is also entitled to get interest @6% per annum. The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid in the saving bank account of the appellant through the Tribunal within one month from the date of this judgment.