1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.863/04 Hari Shankar vs. Abdul Ayyub & Ors. Date of order : 29/4/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vinay Mathur for the appellant. Shri Mahendra Singh for the respondents no.1&2. Shri Tej Prakash for the respondent no.3. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the injured-claimant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.62,000/- with the prayer that the same be enhanced suitably. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant sustained 8.5% permanent disability at the age of 25 years. He was running a flour mill and having monthly income of Rs.4,000/- from such business. Learned Tribunal has erred in accepting the income of Rs.2,000/- per month. The learned counsel argued that the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied keeping in view the age of the appellant which at the material time was 25 years. 2 Learned counsel submitted that the appellant ought to have been awarded a separate sum for the future loss of income which has been altogether ignored by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that no proof of income was furnished by the appellant inasmuch as the Tribunal has accepted the income of Rs.2,000/- in the absence of any proof. Learned counsel submitted that the multiplier of 17 has been correctly applied because when the age of 25 years is asserted, that would be accepted as the completed age of 25 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 17 would be attracted. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has on the basis of disablement of 8.5% correctly by applying the multiplier of 17 arrived at the sum of Rs.4,08,000/- as compensation awardable in the case of total permanent disability and proportionately awarded a sum of Rs.34,680/- and combining this amount with the amount of pain and agony has awarded Rs.40,000/-. Additionally, an amount of Rs.12,000/- for loss of income and Rs.10,000/- jointly for transportation 3 charges, attendant charges, medical expenses and nutritious diet etc. were awarded. In view of the arguments aforesaid and especially the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on various heads which in total comes to Rs.62,000/-, it cannot be said that the amount was on lower side or otherwise unreasonable. I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/