1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1293/2006 (Parimal Prasad Vs. Yogesh Saini and ors.) Date of Judgment : 09-02-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.Ram Singh Rathore,for the appellant. Mr.Dinesh Kala, for the respondents. The learned counsel for both the sides agreed for final disposal of the appeal at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been preferred by the injured Parimal Prasad for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Judge, ADJ (F.T.) No.7, jaipur city, Jaipur vide judgment dated 13.12.2005 whereby a sum of Rs.84,000/- was awarded to the injured- appellant by way of compensation for 28.22% disability sustained on account of the injuries caused in the accident. 4. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to award the adequate compensation for loss of earning as Rs.22000/- has been awarded on 2 this count while the amount should have been assessed as per second schedule to the M.V.Act. It is further submitted that even if he is treated as employed and placed on stable job, he is going to be retired at the age of 55-60, therefore, adequate compensation deserves to be awarded in view of second schedule to the M.V.Act for the period after his superannuation and the amount shall be calculated by adopting multiplier of 8 at the age between 55-60. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. It is also submitted that in view of stable job of injured, loss of earning on account of disability has been taken care of by the salary he received out of his employment and, as such, no compensation is required to be awarded on this count. It is further submitted that in case the above proposition is adopted, then the multiplier of higher should be adopted 3 which is available at the age of 60-65 years under the M.V.Act. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that injured was employed in M.G.Medical College and he was on stable job. The short question of adopting appropriate multiplier can be assessed in view of the fact that life expectancy of a person is increased and even after retirement, person is supposed to engage himself for gainful purposes. The injured has to be compensated adequately so as to place him in the position as no injury was caused to him, thus if this position is required to be restored, multiplier of 8 available at the age of 60 deserves to be adopted, and the amount deserves to be computed as under: 5000 x 12 x 8 (multiplier)x 28.22% = 1,35,456-22000 (already awarded)=93496 (to be additionally awarded). 7. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent 4 that the appellant shall get a sum of Rs.93496/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 17.3.2006, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Srawat/- item no.72