1. - Having suffered 40% of permanent disability, yet having been granted merely Rs.1,28,000/-, vide award dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer ('the learned Tribunal', in short), the appellant has challenged the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.2004, the appellant, Kalu, along with Gopal Gurjar and Ram Swaroop were taking their goats in a tempo, bearing registration No.RJ-01-G-5760, from Rajgarh to Ajmer. Around 11 : 30 AM when the tempo reached near Saradhana Power House on the Rajgarh Road, the driver of the said tempo drove the tempo in a rash and negligent manner and made a sharp turn. Consequently, the tempo turned turtle on the road. While Gopal died on the spot, Kalu and Ram Swaroop suffered injuries in the said accident. Three different claim petitions were filed : one by the appellant, the other by Ram Swaroop and the third by the legal heirs of Gopal. In order to support their case, both Ram Swaroop and Kalu were examined as witnesses and thirteen documents were submitted. The Respondent No.3, the Insurance Company, neither examined any witness, nor submitted any documentary evidence. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. However, as the appellant is aggrieved by the meagre amount of compensation, he has filed the present appeal for enhancement.

3. Mr. Kapil Mathur, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the factual matrix of the case in proper perspective. According to the learned counsel, the dates are important in this case which are as under:-

4. Despite the fact that when the second certificate revealed a permanent disability of 40%, the learned Tribunal has taken the permanent disability of only 3%. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that ever since the accident, the appellant's condition was deteriorating due to the head injury. Although initially he had suffered only 3% of permanent disability, but after almost one year and three months, the appellant had suffered 40% of permanent disability. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the permanent disability as merely 3%. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has not applied the formula given in Item No.5 of the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act ('the Act', in short). Instead, for the simple injuries, he has been granted Rs.4,000/-, and for the grievous injuries, he has been granted Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the learned Tribunal has applied Item No.4 of the Second Schedule of the said Act. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing his monthly income. According the appellant's testimony, he was earning about Rs.6,000/- by selling goats in the market. But the learned Tribunal has taken his monthly income as merely Rs.2,500/- per month. Forthly, the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation for the nutritional food that the appellant had consumed during the period of his recuperation. Lastly, despite the fact that the appellant has suffered 40% of permanent disability, not a single penny has been granted for "the pain