The main legal point established in the given judgment is the determination of compensation amount in motor accident cases based on the assessment of income, future increase in income, and the inconsistency in principles laid down by different judgments.

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal for enhancing the compensation against the Award dated 03.05.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The brief facts are that on the intervening night of 22/23.01.2005, the appellant alongwith his friend Ramzani was going from Idgah Sadar Bazar to his village via Boulward road by tractor bearing No. HNQ-3736 driven by Ramzani. At about 3 a.m, the appellant parked the tractor by the side of the road. The appellant thereafter got down from the tractor and went towards the side of ISBT to purchase beedi/cigarette. After the purchase of beedi/cigarette when the appellant was coming back to the aforesaid tractor, it was around 3.10 a.m, a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-29-GA-0409 (hereinafter called the offending vehicle), driven by Arun Mandal (respondent No. 1) in a rash and negligent manner at a fast speed hit the appellant and consequently the appellant fell down on the road and the offending vehicle ran over his right leg as a result of which his right leg was cut off. The driver (respondent No. 1) Arun Mandal stopped the offending vehicle and got down from the vehicle and the appellant was taken to the Trauma Centre in a precarious condition. The incident resulted into the filing of FIR bearing No. 41/05 dated 23.02.2005 u/s 279/338 of the IPC and later his right leg above the knee joint had to be amputated. Consequently, the MLC of the appellant was prepared and later after due treatment, he was discharged from the hospital. He suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85% due to the amputation of his right leg above the knee joint. Subsequently, he filed a petition for compensation before the Court of Shri. R Pandey, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The Ld. Tribunal on 03.05.2006 passed the award which is tabulated hereinunder:

S.No. Compensation under Various Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Awarded by this Court Remarks

1. Loss of Income 5,32,440/- Rs. 5,02,860/- Wrong multiplicand applied by the Ld. Tribunal.

2. Loss of whole Income for 6 months post the accident Rs 17,400/- (2900 X 6) Rs. 17,400/-

3. Pain and Suffering Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-

4. Conveyance and Special Diet Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 10,000/-

5. Medicines Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 4,000/-

6. Loss of amenities and Enjoyment of Life Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-

7. Damages of amputation of Leg and Disfigurement Rs. 0/- Rs. 1,75,000/-

8. Artificial Limb Rs. 0/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Interest not payable.

9. Future Medical Expenses such as purchase of artificial limb etc. Rs. 0/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Interest not payable.

10. Attendant Charges Rs. 0/- Rs. 17,400/-

Total Rs. 6,13,840 @ 6% interest p.a from date of filing of petition till realization. Rs. 13,76,660/- @ 8% interest.

2. The appellant on being granted insufficient compensation to him by the Ld. Tribunal (Supra) preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully gone through the records available.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Ld. Tribunal has failed to appreciate the deposition of the appellant that he was earning Rs. 200/- per day and thus, oral evidence has been over looked by the Ld. Tribunal, particularly, when there is no cross-examination to this effect by the opposite party.

The appeal filed is civil in nature. Therefore, it is for the appellant to prove his plea on his own leg. The plea taken by the appellant in the present appeal that he was earning Rs. 200/- per day is to be either corroborated with ocular evidence or with documentary evidence. The appellant failed to discharge this onus. His mere ocular evidence of his earning Rs. 200/- per day alone does not ipso facto discharge him from the onus of proving the same under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As such, in the absence of documentary evidence, it is difficult t