V.B. Gupta, J.

1. The Appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment dated 10th May, 1996, passed by Shri Rakesh Kapoor, Judge, MACT vide which the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- as compensation to the Appellant and also awarded 12% per annum interest on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.

2. By way of present appeal, appellant wants compensation amount to be enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- as claimed by him in the petition.

3. Brief facts of this case are that on 1st July, 1988, at about 8.40 a.m. the appellant was standing in front of shop No. F-755, M/S. Khurana Provision Store, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi. In the meanwhile, Car No. DEA-5394 came from the side of Patparganj railway crossing being driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed. Respondent No. 1, the driver of the car, instead of driving the car on its correct side, swerved the car towards the extreme right corner of the road and knocked down the appellant who was standing in front of the aforesaid shop. The appellant sustained grievous injuries on leg and abrasions on all parts of the body which later on turned into permanent disability resulting in amputation of the right leg. Appellant filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No. 1 driver of the car, admitted the factum of accident but took the plea that the appellant might have fallen on the road due to his own negligence and might have been hit by another vehicle.

5. Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it at the time of the accident but stated that the compensation claimed was exorbitant and excessive.

.6. Vide impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/-, as follows:

.(i) On account of loss of salary --------Rs. 15,000.00

.(ii) On account of loss of income ----Rs. 1,00,000.00

due to permanent disability.

(iii) On account of pain and agony ------Rs. 25,000.00

.(iv) On account of treatment/ --------Rs. 15,000.00

purchase of medicines

.(v) On account of special diet. --------Rs. 10,000.00

Total Rs. 1,65,000.00

7. In appeal, respondent No. 1, the driver of said vehicle was served by publication as well as by affixation. Respondent No. 2 Parveen Jain, the owner of the car was present in person on 1st December, 1997 and sought time for engaging the counsel. Thereafter, he absented and respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) was served for 1st December, 1997 but none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

8. On 20th September, 1999 counsel for the appellant was present but none appeared for respondents and accordingly, the appeal was admitted for hearing.

9. On 2nd February, 2007 none was present and the matter was renotified for 5th February, 2007.

10. On 5th February, 2007, counsel for the appellant was present but none appeared on behalf of the respondents and as such arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant have been heard.

11. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has assumed the income of the appellant at the time of the accident as Rs. 1,000/- only, whereas the appellant in his evidence has stated that he is earning Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month. Though, the appellant could not give any documentary proof about his income but the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act.

12. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- only, towards pain and agony without considering the agony of the appellant that his whole life has been crippled and his movement shall be restricted. Further, nobody would like to have marry such like person. No amount was awarded towards the servant which the appellant had engaged to look after himself. So, keeping in view the loss of future prospects, extra expenses to be incurred in the future throughout the life toward