JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited, through the medium of this Miscellaneous Appeal has challenged the Award/Judgment dated February 26, 2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rajouri, in File No. 169/Claim titled “Inderjeet vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors”, whereby a total compensation has been awarded to the claimant-respondent Inderjeet in the amount of Rs.59,78,422/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum except on future income from the date of institution of the petition till realization. 2. The impugned award has been assailed on the grounds that the claimant was claimed to have been working as Motorman/supervisor and had sustained grievous injuries resulting to his permanent disablement on 26.02.2017 when he was hit by a rashly and negligently driven Vehicle No. JK11-5057 (Bus) at Hamilton Bridge within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajouri; that as per the certificate issued by the Medical Board, the claimant had suffered 90% permanent disability being a case of Spastic Paraplegia; that the Tribunal has not appreciated the law as well as the facts on record in proper prospective and has drawn the conclusions erroneously and the award being perverse, deserves to be set aside; that the claimant-respondent was shown by the District Medical Board Rajouri to have suffered 90% permanent disability being a case of Spastic Paraplegia and the Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. Shalinder Sharma had stated that the permanent disability of Spastic Paraplegia can also be possible by way of fall or being crushed under heavy weight. 3. It has been pleaded that the Spastic Paraplegia is a group of clinically and genetically diversed inherited neurodegenerative disorders that cause lower limb spasticity and weakness; that its syndromes have traditionally been classified as either uncomplicated or complicated; that on a clinical examination of the medical disability certificate, it is clear that the claimant was already suffering from Spastic Paraplegia and was not a case of Traumatic Paraplegia, as such, the Tribunal had fallen into error by computing the compensation for ‘loss of future earnings’ on the basis of the extent of disability, even if it is presumed that the compensation under this head was payable, therefore, the compensation granted under the ‘loss of future income’ is bad and cannot sustain in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside; that the Tribunal in absence of any definite proof with regard to the income of the claimant had accepted Rs. 12,000/- per month as basic income of the claimant and with addition of 40% of un-established income, the loss of earning capacity has been raised to Rs.16,800/- monthly and Rs.2,01,600/- annually, though the claimant had not discharged the burden to prove his non-fixed income, which is required to be proved by adducing convincing evidence about the definite income; that the compensation awarded to the claimant by no stretch of imagination can be said to be just and is liable to be rejected; that the claimant has also been awarded compensation exorbitantly on other heads like expenses to be incurred in future on fowler and alphabet, wheel chair and on attendance and it was prayed for setting aside the award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the disability is to be assessed in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Raj Kumar’s case which provides that ‘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/her earning capacity.’ 5. He has further argued that the Spastic Paraplegia as certified by the District Medical Board is a kind of inherited/hereditary disability and in no way can be related to the vehicular accident involving offending vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company; that the ‘future loss of income’ has also been wrongly computed by the Tribunal unmindful of the fact that the claimant was already suffering of an inherited/hereditary Paraplegia, as such, the Tribunal had committed error in not only determining the functional disability of the claimant, by relying upon the physical disability given by the Board only and also assessed the ‘future loss of income’ without taking into an account that the disability of the claimant was also inherited and hereditary in character without being related to the accident. He further argued that the Tribunal had wrongly accepted income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/- as skilled worker as against the Government Notification for the year in which the accident occurred which provided as Rs.8,000/- for skilled worker; that the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.12,70,400/- as expenses on two attendants which is also not a just compensation and is required to be set aside; that the Tribunal had mis-directed itself by granting interest on whole of the amount though the same was not permissible on future loss of income and it was prayed that the impugned award being unsustainable be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant, ex adverso, argued that the disability as a result of the grievous injuries received by the claimant-respondent in the accident has been classified as Paraplegia by the District Medical Board Rajouri, which had been proved by one of its members before the Tribunal and with the Spastic Paraplegia, the disability is almost 100%. He has further argued that the income of the claimant had been proved by his employer Naresh Kumar of M/S Bakshi Tek Chand with whom the claimant had been working as a Motorman with salary of Rs.12,000/-. He has also argued that the expenses for one attendant had only been awarded and not two as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has further submitted that the Tribunal had decided the matter in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides, perused the record and considered the matter. 8. The factual background of the case is that the claimant Inderjeet sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident on 22.02.2017 at Hamilton Bridge Rajouri within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajouri, due to rash and negligent driving of Mini Bus No. JK11-5057 by its driver regarding which a case was registered at Police Station Rajouri, vide FIR No.79/2017. The offending vehicle owned by respondent-Parshotam Lal was driven at the time of accident by respondent-Ajay Kumar and was insured with the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited. The injured Inderjeet, who as a result of his injuries had been disabled, filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rajouri. 9. The offending vehicle owned by respondent-Parshotam Lal was driven at the time of accident by respondent-Ajay Kumar and was insured with the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited. The injured Inderjeet, who as a result of his injuries had been disabled, filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rajouri. 9. The claim was contested by the appellant-insurer, whereas and the owner and driver of the vehicle had not contested the same, whowere proceeded exparte before the Tribunal. After raising of the issues based on the pleadings of the contesting parties, the evidence was recorded by the Tribunal and vide impugned Award, the Tribunal granted a compensation in the amount of Rs.59,78,422/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by the insurer of the vehicle. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-insurer has filed this appeal. 10. The award has been mainly challenged on the ground that the Tribunal had not considered the disability as the Spastic Paraplegia was a medical term for inherited/hereditary ailment and cannot be directly attributed to the vehicular accident involving the offending vehicle insured with the appellant-insurer; that the income of the claimant has been wrongly accepted as Rs.12,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/- as a skilled labour and the compensation under other heads, have also been granted on higher side, besides interest on the ‘loss of future income’, which was not permissible. 11. The Tribunal recorded that from the evidence led by the claimant, it had been proved that he was working with a contractor as Motorman/supervisor with a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- and that he had an agricultural income from his land measuring 20 Kanals, as such, his monthly income from all sources was Rs.20,000/- prior to the accident. The Tribunal, however, accepted the income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/-per month based on the statement of PW-4 employer of the claimant. The learned Tribunal while recording that the Board of Doctors had indicated the permanent disability of the claimant as 90% for having sustained Spastic Paraplegia and implant insitu with bed sores and being on wheel chair as per the certificate EXPW-SS proved by PW-3, as such, the functional disability of the claimant was treated as 100% as he was found to be unable to do any activity in view of Spastic Paraplegia. The Tribunal decided the claim petition, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Ors”, reported as 2011 ACJ 1 . 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Spastic Paraplegia was not as a result of accident only, however, in absence of any evidence and particularly no question, in this regard, to the medical expert during his examination, this contention of the learned counsel is of no help during the hearing of this appeal. The Tribunal has, thus, rightly decided that in view of the 90% disability certified by the District Medical Board of the claimant, 100% disability was accepted in view of the Spastic Paraplegia as the claimant was not only wheel chair bound but almost bed ridden and dependent for help on others. 13. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the monthly income of the claimant has wrongly been accepted as Rs.12,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/- as was notified by the Government as minimum wages for skilled worker is concerned, this income as notified by the Government has to be accepted by the Tribunal/Courts in absence of any other evidence but once the employer has appeared and certified that the claimant was being paid monthly wages of Rs.12,000/- as a Motorman/ supervisor and in presence of this evidence, the Tribunal was not supposed to go back to accept the income, as per Government Notification. The appellant, as respondent did not lead any evidence so as to prove that the claimant had not this much of the income as had been projected by him by leading cogent evidence. The Tribunal has, thus, rightly accepted the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal has also rightly worked out the compensation having regard to the future prospects of the income of the claimant by adding 40% of the wages to the income of the claimant having regard to his age and waged income in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “National Insurance Company versus Pranay Sethi & Ors”, reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 14. The Tribunal, thus, worked out the total future loss of earnings to Rs.34,27,200/- by applying the multiplier of 17 to the annual loss of earnings Rs.75,600/-. 14. The Tribunal, thus, worked out the total future loss of earnings to Rs.34,27,200/- by applying the multiplier of 17 to the annual loss of earnings Rs.75,600/-. The Tribunal also granted compensation on account of re-imbursement of the medical expenses in the amount of Rs.4,20,822/- incurred by the claimant on his treatment and also awarded an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh as future medical expenses, an amount of Rs.30,000/-each, on expenses for fowler and alphabet purchased already and to be purchased in future. Besides an amount of Rs.50,000/- as expenses on special diet, an amount of Rs.25,000/-each, was granted for already purchased of wheelchair and one to be purchased in future, an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation for pain and suffering, Rs.1.00 lakh as loss of amenity of life and expenses on two attendants Rs.12,70,400/-. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal had rightly decided the compensation on all heads except the expenses on two attendants. It appears that the expenses on one attendant will be sufficient in the case, as such, expenses on attendant is reduced from Rs. 12,70,400/- to Rs.6,35,200/-. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the interest has been ordered to be levied on future income as well, however, on perusal of Para 24 of the impugned award, it is clear that the interest has been awarded on other compensation except on future income, therefore, this contention being wrongly raised, is rejected. 16. For the foregoing reason and the observations made hereinabove, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is affirmed except reducing amount of compensation on account of expenses on attendants, therefore, the impugned award on its modification shall be payable in the amount of Rs.53,43,222/- as total compensation instead of Rs.59,78,422/- along with interest @ Rs.7.5% per annum, except on future interest. 17. The Appeal along with pending application(s), is disposed of. No costs.