1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1014/2000 (Ashok Jain Vs. Jagveer Singh and ors.) Date of Judgment : 25-08-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.Kishan Swami for Mr.Virendra Agrawal,for the appellants. Mr.S.R.Joshi, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of injured-appellant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur city, Jaipur vide judgment dated 13.4.2000 whereby a sum of Rs.1,08,960/- was awarded by way of compensation for 35% disability caused on account of injuries sustained in the accident. 3. The challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation only. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of RS.35,000/- as compensation by way of lump sum while the amount deserves to be computed by adopting second schedule to the M.V.Act to be the guideline and by 2 adopting appropriate multiplier commensurating with the percentage of disability. 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 further submitted that injured is an employee of Insurance Company and he has got an stable job and loss of earning during serice tenure shall be taken care of by the Insurance Company and, as such, multiplier which is available at the age of retirement, can only be taken into consideration and not the multiplier provided under second schedule to the M.V.Act. 6. On hearing rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that at the time of accident, injured was getting his salary of Rs.7168/- as per salary certificate Ex.16. The injured was 36 years of age at the time 3 of accident and he was employee of Insurance Company and had a stable job and, as such, loss of income during service tenure is to be taken care of by the Ins.Company and, as such,multiplier of 9 according to guideline in Sarla Verma and anr. Vs. DTC and ors.- 2009(6) Scc 121, deserves to be adopted. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that injured has claimed sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation and, as such, compensation cannot exceed as to what is demanded. In view of submission of learned counsel for the appellant, computation of compensation for loss of future income deserves to be confined to the amount claimed by way of compensation by the injured in appeal amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.35,000/- has already been paid for loss of earning by the Tribunal and, as such, Rs.2,00,000-(minus)Rs.35,000=Rs.1,65,000/- (to be additionally awarded) deserves to be awarded by way of enhanced compensation. 7. Accordingly, appeal of the injured- appellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified 4 to the extent that the injured-appellant shall get a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 10.7.2000, 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. Sandeep/- item no.33