1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1297 of 2001. Laxman son of Shri Nizam Mehrat VERSUS Kalu Khan son of Shri Babu Khan and Another Date of Order :::: 10/11/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Counsel for the Claimant-appellant Mr. B.N. Sandu, Counsel for the respondents *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the claimant-appellant and perused the record as well as the award of the learned Tribunal. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the claimant – Laxman, who was injured in an accident while driving vehicle, which collided with the bus bearing No.RJ-14-P- 4999. As a result of the aforesaid injury the appellant suffered injury, including the amputation of his right hand. The appellant was the driver of the jeep and it is the case of the appellant that the learned Tribunal assessed the permanent disability as 70%, and the claimant has been awarded only a meager amount of Rs.75,000/- towards the loss 2 of future earning, as he is now incapable of carrying out the job of driver, which is in fact a total permanent disability. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for the amount of loss of future earning as Rs.75,000/- in lump sum, but in arriving at the aforesaid figure has not taken into account any specific formula for calculating the same. No specific finding with regard to the age or the income of the appellant at the time of the accident has been computed. From the record, it appears that in the injury report (Exhibit-9) of the appellant, the age of the appellant has been given as 22-years and the x-ray report also gave his age as 22- years. The driving license of the appellant is also available as Exhibit-24, where the date of birth appears to be 10.05.1974, but the same is not clear. The accident in which the appellant was injured, took place on 04.10.1999. Therefore, in any event the age of the appellant on the date of accident could not have been more than 25-years in which event a multiplier of 17 can be adopted in term of the second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So far as the income of the appellant is concerned, the appellant (PW-1) in his statement has stated that he was earning about Rs.3000/- per month while driving the Jeep with Rs.50/- as daily allowance. The aforesaid statement has remained unrebutted 3 as no evidence in rebuttal has been led by the respondents. The appellant could have produced his employer, but he has failed to examine the employer as a witness to prove as to what was the salary being paid to the appellant at the time of the accident. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, it would not be possible for this Court to take the income as Rs.3000/-. Looking to the fact that the accident occurred in the year, 1999, this Court would consider the income of the appellant at the time of the accident for the purposes of determination of compensation as Rs.2000/-. Since, the permanent disability of the appellant has been assessed as 70%, the loss of earning on account of the aforesaid disability is assessed as Rs.1400/- per month. The computation of the compensation for the purposes of loss of earning on account of the aforesaid permanent disability is assessed as follows :- (1400x12x17) = Rs.2,85,600/-. The appellant has already been paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- under the aforesaid head. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to receive an additional amount of Rs.2,10,600/- (Rupees two lacs ten thousand & six hundred only) under the head of loss of earning on account of the permanent disability. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the appellant with interest @ 6% per 4 annum from the date of filing of this appeal i.e. 16.08.2001. This amount shall be paid by means of demand draft in favour of the claimant before the learned Tribunal. The miscellaneous appeal stands allowed to the extent as aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dalip Singh), J. ashok/