1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.725/1998 MANISH DEV V/s SMT. RAUKMANI & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT : APRIL 11, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Sandeep Mathur, for claimant-appellant. Shri N.S.Yadav for New India Assurance Company BY THE COURT : (Oral) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been preferred for enhancement of the award by the claimant-appellant against judgment dated July 27, 1996, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby a sum of Rs.55,000/-/. On June 30, 1990, appellant Manish Deo was traveling on motor-cycle RNE 9528 as pillion rider and the motor cycle as driven b y respondent No.2, Rajneesh. The motor cycle met with an accident near Ajmer bridge in which appellant sustained grievous injuries on his maxilla and mandible bones on his face and 2 found 30% disability. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation without considering the various factors based on concept of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (1995 ACJ 366. learned counsel further submits that injured was young man of 22 years and he was unmarried. He was working by running a travel agency wherein his presentation was important to fetch business. Thus, his future livelihood has been reduced to a great extent. He has been put to mental agony and pain for whole of life on account of disability sustained. Learned counsel further submits that the injured was earning Rs.25,000/- as shown in his income tax return Ex. P 39 for the year 1992-93. Per contra, N.S. Yadav, learned counsel, who is one of the counsel for the Insurance Company, has given appearance on behalf of Insurance Company on being directed to do so, has argued that the income of the injured should be taken into the minimum 3 income of Rs.15,000/- as provided in Second Schedule of the structural liability to the M.V. Act. After having heard the rival submissions and going through the judgment of the learned Tribunal as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that the injured was 22 years of age and on account of the injuries sustained by him, he had to undergo treatment for a quite a long period and had to travel to Mumbai many a times as stated by him in his statement during inquiry. It is also revealed that the appellant was engaged with the work pertaining to travel agency and on account of injuries and disability sustained, his capacity of presentation for running the business has been reduced to a great extent. There is nothing to controvert in regard to his annual income on record as against what he has deposed and the income tax return submitted by him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not essential to go into the details of the compensation awarded under the various heads by the learned Tribunal with a view to provide compensation to the injured. However, it would be essential to seek help of Second Schedule of M.V. Act 4 for providing compensation for the future loss of income to the injured on account of disability sustained by him. Therefore, on calculating the loss on the above guidelines by multiplier of 17, it comes to Rs.4,25,000/- and by dividing the said amount with the amount of disability of 30%, the loss of income to be assessed to Rs.1,27,500/-. Accordingly, I deem it proper to enhance the compensation Rs. 1,27,500/- plus Rs.55,000/- i.e. to say Rs.1,82,500/-. Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award upto the date of filing appeal, the amount of the award is enhanced to Rs.1,82,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of appeal with the condition that failure to make payment under the award within a period of three months from this order shall entail interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of appeal i.e. 16.11.1996. 8. The appeal stands disposed of with the modification of the award as stated hereinabove. (Guman Singh), J. Chauhan/