1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2594/2007 Prakash. vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2594/2007 Prakash. vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors Date : 10.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.S Saruparia, for the appellant. Mr.TRS Sodha, for the respondent no.3. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in MACT Case No.332/2004 vide judgment and award dated 4.12.2006. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was of the age of 10 years only at the time of accident and he suffered several injuries and most grave is amputation of his leg below knee. The doctor certified 75% permanent disablement. The learned tribunal though accepted the claim of the appellant but while considering his disability, after holding that the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,17,000/- on account 2 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2594/2007 Prakash. vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. of future loss of income instead of awarding 70% of the amount, awarded only 60% of the amount, thereby, the learned tribunal committed error. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that on account of pain, suffering and amputation of leg and affecting his present life as well as in future as a whole including his future married life, the learned tribunal awarded only Rs.35,000/-. According to the appellant, this amount should be increased to Rs.1,00,000/- Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 – insurance company submitted that the tribunal has awarded in total Rs.2,56,000/- and that itself is excessive and, therefore, there is no reason to increase the amount on any account. It is also submitted that the entire aspect has been decided by the Tribunal while deciding the question of loss of future income and while doing so, the learned Tribunal considered the fact that the appellant suffered amputation of his leg and, therefore, the award, which in fact is excessive, may not be increased. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given in the 3 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2594/2007 Prakash. vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. impugned award as well as the record. The Tribunal assessed income of the appellant as Rs.15000/- per annum and looking to the age of the appellant, applied multiplier of 18 and held that the appellant's income to be Rs.2,70,000/- and while assessing compensation, granted 60% of the same while relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of Prabhu Mehta vs. Jagannath & Ors. reported in 2005 RAR 187, wherein the compensation of 60% of the loss of income was awarded to a person who suffered amputation of leg. The tribunal erred in doing so because of the reason that each case is required to be decided according to the facts of each case. When the doctor has certified that the appellant suffered 70% disability and unless there is any other reason, there was no cause for the Tribunal to compute the compensation less than 70%. At this juncture, it will be relevant to mention here that the appellant was of very young age of 10 years and he had to face the consequences of this amputation for ever, therefore, the appellant's agony cannot be lessened as he is to suffer the agony every day. He is yet to be married and, therefore, while computing the compensation, there cannot be a straight jacket formula. The award of 4 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2594/2007 Prakash. vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Rs.35,000/- is too low and is required to be enhanced to Rs.75,000/- In view of the above reasons, taking into consideration all the facts, the appellant is held entitled to Rs.1,89,000/- on account of his loss of income in place of Rs.1,62,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. The appellant is also entitled to Rs.75,000/- on account of his sufferings and future agony in place of Rs.35,000/-. Rest amount awarded is maintained. In view of the above, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,56,000/- to Rs.3,23,000/-. The appellant shall be entitled to interest as awarded by the Tribunal on the enhanced amount from the date of the order passed by this Court. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya