Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment 24.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 1390 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the appeal by the first respondent- insurance company against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (AUXI), Ahmedabad (Rural) in M.A.C.P. No. 40 of 2007, was partly allowed.

3. The appellant-claimant was a pillion rider on a motor cycle when he met with an accident on 14.12.2006. The evidence of Dr. Khandwal, with Exhibit-33, Disability Certificate would reveal that the appellant had incurred whole body disability of 58.91%, rounded of to 59%. The Tribunal, after taking into account the evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,73,514/-, inclusive Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr. Naveen Rawal of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, with Date: 2024.02.22 16:30:24 IST Reason: interest @ 8% per annum.

4. In the first appeal by the Insurance Company, the appellant- claimant filed cross objection. As per the impugned judgment, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was partly allowed by making the claimant-appellant entitled to interest only on the amount of Rs.11,73,514/- and dis-entitled to interest for the balance amount of Rs.2 lakhs granted by the Tribunal towards future medical expenses. In the captioned appeal, the appellant-claimant claims enhancement of quantum of compensation besides restoration of interest on future medical expenses.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as also counsel for the respondents. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that disinclination on the part of the High Court in granting interest for the future medical expenses, in other words, interference with the grant of interest by the Tribunal for the said amount, cannot be said to be for a reason which is alogical and therefore, illegal. It is true that the High Court had not given any reason for interfering with the grant of interest for the amount granted under the said head. The fact is that the appellant is yet to incur expenses therefor. In the said circumstances, we do not find any merit in the claim and contentions of the appellant relating to interest on the amount which was granted towards the future medical expenses.

6. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions based on the admitted evidence on record, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to get the enhancement of compensation under 3 the head ‘future loss of income’. The contention of the appellant is that taking note of the fact that he was aged 23 years at the time of accident, and thereby belongs to the ‘age group of 21 years to 25 years’, for the purpose of quantifying the compensation under the said head, the multiplier ought to have been taken as ‘18’ in view of the Schedule given in the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121. That apart, it is contended that while fixing the income for the purpose, future prospects ought to have been taken into account and in that regard the facts that the appellant was only aged only 23 years at the time of the accident and he was then pursuing post graduation have been given due weight. In other words, the future loss of income granted by the Tribunal was inadequate as those aspects were not taken appropriately.

8. Going by the Schedule given in the decision Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and taking note of the undisputed position regarding the age of the appellant at the time of accident, the multiplier to be adopted in the case on hand is ‘18’.

9. Now, as relates the income, the contention of the appellant is that it ought to have been taken as Rs.9,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal as also the High Court went wrong in giving due consideration to the facts that the appellant was earning income by taking tuition classes and also by conducting agricultural operations. Virtually, the fact that the appellant was taking tuition classes was taken into 4 account though the claim regarding income on account of agricultural operations was not taken into account. The admitted position is that the appellant has failed to adduce any evidence to show that he was earning through agricultural operations. We are of the view that we need not delve into the matter any further in view of the specific pleading of the appellant in the claim petition. He pleaded thereunder only to calculate his monthly income not less than Rs.5,000/-.

10. In the above circumstances and in the light of the pleadings and evidence on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the fixation of the monthly income as Rs.5,000/- by the Tribunal which was confirmed by the High Court. At the same time, we are of the view that taking note of the fact that the appellant was aged only 23 years, he was pursuing his post graduation and while pursuing his post-graduation, he was taking tuition classes, 40% enhancement ought to have been given to the income which was fixed for the purpose of quantification of compensation. That will take the income to be taken for the purpose of quantification of compensation under the head to Rs.7,000/-. The fact is that the appellant had incurred the disability of 59%.

11. Taking into account all the aforesaid aspects, the income for future loss of income is recalculated at Rs.8,92,080/- which is rounded off as Rs.8,92,000/-. The amount already granted under that head has to be deducted. Upon such deduction, the appellant is entitled to get an enhancement of Rs.3,12,000/-. The amount 5 awarded stands modified to that effect. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs.3,12,000/- is granted by way of enhancement and this amount would carry interest at the same rate as has been granted by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount along with interest shall be given within four weeks from today.

12. With the aforesaid modification in the award, this appeal stands disposed of.

13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

.................J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) .................J. (RAJESH BINDAL) NEW DELHI;

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-10-2018 in FA No. 1390/2016 passed by the High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad) RAJENDRASINH N. VADHER Petitioner(s) VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.114721/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.114727/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.114724/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Date : 21-02-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv.

Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv.

Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv.

Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Prasad, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Manu Luv Shahalia, Adv.

Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mrs. Usha Pant Kukreti, Adv.

Mr. Yashvardhan S Soam, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order, placed on the file.