ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (claimant). Also heard Mrs. Suman Bagga, learned counsel appearing for the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.3). The vehicle owner (respondent No.1) is represented by Ms. Neema, learned counsel. 3. The appellant while standing on the road side (on 16.04.2008), was hit by the vehicle driven by the respondent No.2, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries. The appellant's left hand was amputated and his disability was assessed at 70% (Annexure P/2), by the District Medical Board, Morena as per the notification dated 06.08.1986 of the Ministry of Social Welfare. 4. The appellant's counsel claims that appellant's income should be computed as Rs. 12,000/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month, as determined by the High Court. However, Mrs. Suman Bagga, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that as the accident had occurred in the year 2008, to peg the income at Rs. 12,000/- per month, would not be justified. 5. It is admitted that the appellant was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident. The accident itself is admitted together with the fact that the vehicle was covered by an insurance policy, issued by the respondent No.3. The appellant's disability certificate is also not seriously contested by the respondents side. 6. The income of the appellant was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month and accordingly his loss of income, by applying the multiplier of 17, was fixed at Rs. 3,66,000/-. 7. The appellant is a farmer with agricultural income. He was earning additional amount by rearing six buffaloes and selling their milk. Therefore, the Rs.3,000/- monthly income assessed by the High Court for the appellant is found to be on the lower side. 8. Having considered the circumstances here, we deem it appropriate to peg the appellant's income at Rs. 6,000/- per month. Taking this figure into account, his loss of income is fixed at Rs. 9,66,000/-. Thus, the insurance company is held liable to remit lumpsum additional compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the appellant, over and above the Rs. 3,66,000/-, fixed by the High Court. 9. Mrs. Suman Bagga, learned counsel submits that the insurance company has already remitted the earlier amount. Accordingly, the insurance company is directed to remit to the appellant, the additional lumpsum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the appellant, over and above the Rs. 3,66,000/-, fixed by the High Court. 9. Mrs. Suman Bagga, learned counsel submits that the insurance company has already remitted the earlier amount. Accordingly, the insurance company is directed to remit to the appellant, the additional lumpsum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing the claim petition. This additional sum is directed to be deposited before the MACT, Morena within six weeks from today. The Tribunal should then facilitate the appellant to receive the additional amount in reference to the Claim Case No. 110 of 2008. It is ordered accordingly. 10. With the above, the matter stands disposed of.