JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted. The appellant has approached this Court because he is not fully satisfied with the enhancement granted by the High Court in the amount of compensation awarded by 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short, `the Tribunal').

2. In the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act'), which came to be registered as MVC No.59 of 2005, the appellant prayed for award of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,70,000/- with interest @ 18%. The appellant's claim was founded on the following assertions: (i) That he had suffered grievous injuries in an accident which occurred on 14.11.2004 when the mini bus in which he was working as Helper overturned due to rash and negligent driving by the driver Shri Abdul Ahmad Musalman. (ii) That he was initially treated at Government Hospital, Seoni from where he was shifted to Nagpur Medical College. He remained in the hospital from 14.11.2004 to 2.1.2005 and 15.2.2005 to 20.3.2005. Due to infection, his left leg was amputated above the knee. Thereafter, he was treated at National Hospital, Jabalpur. (iii) That at the time of accident his age was about 24 years and he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-. (iv) That on account of amputation of leg, he lost the job and his future was bleak.

3. The owner and the driver of the vehicle did not contest the claim of the appellant, but the respondent insurance company did so. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it was pleaded that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the mini bus and, in any case, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation because the driver of the mini bus did not have valid driving licence.

4. After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the mini bus by its driver. However, the Tribunal did not accept the appellant's version that he was working as a Helper and was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- by observing that he had not produced any evidence to prove the factum of employment and monthly emoluments. The Tribunal then referred to the Second Schedule of the Act and determined the amount of compensation by assuming the appellant's income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal was of the view that due to 70% disability, the appellant would suffer loss of income to the tune of Rs.10,500/- per annum. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 17 and held that the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,78,500/- towards loss of future income.

5. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads was as under: 1) Mental agony and physical pain caused due to amputation of the leg and other injuries Rs.25000/- 2) Medical expenses Rs. 3300/- 3) Expenditure incurred on nutritious food and transportation during treatment Rs.10000/- 4) Loss of earning due to accident and entertainment from normal earning Rs.10000/- 5) Cost of artificial leg Rs.30000/- The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6% on the total compensation of Rs.2,56,800/-.

6. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the award of the Tribunal was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by granting an enhancement of Rs.50,000/-. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the income of the appellant, who was working as Cleaner at the time of accident could be taken as Rs.2000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum and the loss of income due to 70% permanent disability would be Rs.16,800/- per annum. He also applied the multiplier of 17 and held that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,85,600/- towards future loss of income. The learned Single Judge added Rs.20,400/- towards conveyance charges, special diet and medical expenses and concluded that the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the dat