1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2794/03 Jagdish Kumar vs. Anil Khan & Ors. Date of order : 23/4/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sandeep Mathur for the appellant. Shri R.P. Vijay for the respondent. ****** This appeal is directed against the award dated 29.9.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded to the injured appellant. Shri Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has erred in law in merely awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the disability of 40% suffered by the appellant, who at the time of accident was merely 27 years of age and a student of electrical engineering. It was argued that there was no reason for the Tribunal to proceed on the notional income basis of Rs.1,500/- per month because an electrical engineer was eventually bound to earn much more than that. It was argued that the learned Tribunal did not make any discussion whatsoever as to on what basis it 2 arrived at the figure of Rs.2,00,000/-. Appointment of the appellant on the post of Engineer was delayed because he could not acquire the diploma of two years during the normal time period. It was argued that in another heads also, sufficient amount has not been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Shri R.P. Vijay, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and argued that the Tribunal has already taken a liberal approach. While referring to Schedule Second to Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel submitted that in case the injuries suffered in a non fatal accident, the compensation for loss of income would not have been awarded for more than 52 weeks whereas in the present case, the Tribunal has awarded such compensation for the term of two years in the sum of Rs.36,000/-. Additionally a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded for treatment, special diet and transportation charges and attendant. The Tribunal has however awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for permanent disability. It is argued that if this amount is translated into monthly income by applying the 3 multiplier of 18, it would come to about Rs.2300/-. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the award is wholly justified and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that though the Tribunal has not made any discussion as to in what manner, it arrived at the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for permanent disability of 40%, but even then as rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondent, this would definitely be based on more income than just the notional income of Rs.1500. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that it was based on notional income of Rs.1,500/- cannot be accepted. Besides the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.36,000/- for the loss of income and Rs.1,00,000/- under other heads referred to above. In totality, I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal, which may justify interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/