ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. The appellant Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (nonclaimant) has preferred the instant misc. appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award 16.09.2011 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MAC Case No.627/2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.20,70,000/-in favour of claimant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident along with interest @ 12 % per annum while holding the appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 30.07.2008. 2. The claimant/cross objector has also filed cross objection, connected with the misc. appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation with a prayer to dismiss the misc. appeal preferred by the appellant Insurance Company. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimant, Anwar Hussain filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,47,05,000/-on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident, which took place on 01.01.2008. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia averred by the claimant that on 01.01.2008 while he was going from Udaipur to Nimbahera on his motorcycle bearing registration number RJ-27-SF-4030 with a moderate speed, then a Dumper bearing registration number RJ-09-G-1952, which was being plied by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle, as a result of which the claimant sustained various injuries and damage was also caused to his motorcycle. On account of said accident, there was amputation in the left lower limb and he also sustained fracture of tibia of right leg as well. The claimant sustained 80% permanent disability. It was further alleged in the claim petition that the claimant was a contractor and used to earn Rs.2,00,000/-per year and on account of injuries suffered by him, he will not be able to discharge his work properly and effectively. 4. After receipt of the summons of the claim petition, no body put in appearance on behalf of non-claimant No.1/driver and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against him. On behalf of non-claimant No.2 reply to claim petition was filed while denying negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. On behalf of non-claimant No.3/appellant herein, reply was filed while refuting the claim laid by the claimant. On behalf of non-claimant No.2 reply to claim petition was filed while denying negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. On behalf of non-claimant No.3/appellant herein, reply was filed while refuting the claim laid by the claimant. An objection with regard to driver of the offending vehicle not having valid and effective licence to ply the vehicle was also raised and a prayer for exonerating the appellant insurance company was made. 5. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues, including relief, which reads as under : 6. In support of the claim petition, the claimant examined himself as AW.1 and 124 documents were exhibited. Despite opportunity being granted, no evidence was led by the non-claimants. 7. The learned Tribunal after considering the arguments and the material placed before it vide judgment and award dated 16.09.2011 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour of claimant to tune of Rs.20,70,000/-with interest @ 9% p.a. while fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant insurance company. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/non-claimant Insurance Company vehemently submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the yearly income of the injured at Rs.1,00,000/-, inasmuch as no documentary evidence was led by the claimant to substantiate his yearly income. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since no documents evidencing claimant’s yearly income at Rs.1,00,000/-were produced, therefore, the income of the claimant could not be more than Rs.3600/-to Rs.4000/-per month and thus the loss of income assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.12,00,000/-was not just and proper and the same should be Rs.4,50,000/-only. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company also questioned the compensation awarded to the claimant under the head of mental pain and agony whereby the claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding lump sum amount of Rs.6,00,000/-towards treatment, medicines, operation, tests, transportation and physiotherapy charges. An objection for awarding Rs.1,50,000/-towards charges for attendant in absence of any plausible evidence for availing services of attendant was also taken. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 12% p.a. is also higher and the same ought to be 9% p.a. 9. An objection for awarding Rs.1,50,000/-towards charges for attendant in absence of any plausible evidence for availing services of attendant was also taken. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 12% p.a. is also higher and the same ought to be 9% p.a. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/cross-objector vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant/non-claimant. It is submitted that on account of amputation in the left leg, the claimant has sustained 80% permanent disability and now the claimant is not even able to discharge his work of contractor. Learned counsel for the claimant/cross-objector further submits that the claimant remained hospitalized for quite long time, however, the learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation for claimant’s hospitalization and thus the compensation deserves to be suitably enhanced. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not considering the yearly income of the claimant/injured at Rs.1,32,000/-, whereas the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the yearly income of the injured/claimant at Rs.1,00,000/-without there being any justifiable basis so as not to consider the claimant’s income to be Rs.1,32,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimant thus submits that the compensation towards loss of income deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the claimant/cross-objector thus submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is meager and the same be enhanced and the appeal preferred by the appellant Insurance Company be dismissed. 10. While admitting the misc. appeal preferred by the appellant Insurance Company, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2012 stayed the execution of the award dated 16.09.2011 subject to appellant Insurance Company depositing a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-with the learned Tribunal against the award of Rs.20,70,000/-after taking into consideration the amount, already deposited. 11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.07.2012 at the request of counsel for the appellant dispensed with the service qua respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle. 12. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 13. This Court finds that before the learned Tribunal the claimant/injured claimed that by doing the work of transport and contractor, he was earning Rs.2 lacs per year, however, the claimant failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his income at Rs.2 lacs per year. 13. This Court finds that before the learned Tribunal the claimant/injured claimed that by doing the work of transport and contractor, he was earning Rs.2 lacs per year, however, the claimant failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his income at Rs.2 lacs per year. This Court also finds that the claimant has produced the income tax returns, however, the same were not prior to the accident and the same were submitted after the accident, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal after considering the material placed before it, has rightly assessed the yearly income of the claimant/injured at Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly brushed aside and not considered the ITR(s), which were submitted after the accident. 14. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has granted adequate compensation to the claimant for the injuries suffered by the claimant, inasmuch as he sustained 80% permanent disability due to amputation of left leg and also sustained fracture in tibia of right leg. Thus, in the opinion of this Court the learned Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation of Rs.50,000/-towards mental agony and pain to the claimant. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 and thereby arriving at the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation towards loss of income at Rs.12,00,000/-. 15. For the treatment, medicines, diagnosis, operation and other expenses, the claimant/injured incurred Rs.4,92,626/-and also incurred Rs.15,886/- towards transportation and also produced bill for physiotherapy of Rs.2,16,000/-. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-to the claimant, which also do not call for any interference by this Court. So far as claim made by the claimant for awarding compensation for artificial limb and claiming a sum of Rs.9,34,200/-is concerned, in absence of concerned doctor having been examined by the claimant to substantiate the said claim, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in denying the claim in this regard. 16. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal against the claim of the claimant that he incurred a sum of Rs.90,000/-towards nursing and dressing charges, has awarded Rs.50,000/-in favour of claimant, as the claimant failed to disclose the name of the doctor, who issued Ex.104. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-towards the attendant charges. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-towards the attendant charges. This Court also finds that for removal of the fixation, the claimant incurred a sum of Rs.23,000/-by exhibiting Ex.118, however, in absence of name of the concerned doctor being mentioned in Ex.118, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-, which in the opinion of this Court, do not call for any interference by this Court. 17. Thus, in view of over all discussion and scrutiny of the record of the case, this Court finds no force in the misc. appeal file by the appellant Insurance Company and that of cross objection filed by the claimant. Accordingly, the misc. appeal and the cross objections are dismissed. No costs. The remaining amount, which has not been paid to the claimant under the interim order of this Court, shall be disbursed to the claimant pursuant to the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.