1. - This appeal has been filed against the award dated 17.5.1995 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 573/1991 whereby a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was awarded to the appellant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.1990 the appellant met with an accident, while riding on a Scooter No. RRX 6020 was struck by a jeep bearing registration No. RNB 1497 as a result of which the appellant suffered multiple injuries. It has further come in evidence that as a result of the aforesaid injuries, the abdomen of the appellant was ripped open and, consequently, was operated upon in which his spleen had to be removed and his one kidney was partially damaged. As a result of the said accident, the appellant remained under treatment in the hospital from 19.12.1990 to 29.12.1990. The claimant-appellant amongst others produced in evidence A.W. 3 Dr. S.K. Pathak who has produced and proved the certificate (Ex. P.16) of the Medical Board, wherein the Medical Board has opined that on account of the said accident and the injuries received therein he was operated upon, one of the kidneys of the appellant was partially damaged and the spleen had to be removed, the appellant suffered 37.5% disability which reduced the immunity of the appellant which will make him more prone to the diseases. The appellant at the time of accident was 21 years of age and was a student of II year of MBBS. It is the case of the appellant that being in the medical profession and being in touch with the patients suffering from various diseases, with his reduced immunity, he would be more prone to the diseases, as such, the disability in this case which was ignored by the Tribunal deserves to the considered and the amount of compensation be accordingly enhanced as per the provisions contained in Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the provisions contained in the Second Schedule would be relevant in arriving at a just figure of compensation which may be awarded in such cases.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the earning capacity on account of permanent partial disability of 37.5% has to be taken into account and the provisions of Item No. 6 of Second Schedule are relevant for the purposes since, the appellant at the time of accident was a non-earning person being a student of II year MBBS and his notional income is assessed as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The appellant being 21 years of age, the multiplier adopted in such cases would be 17.

5. Consequently, the quantum of damages to be assessed would be Rs. 15,000/- per annum multiplied by 17 which is equal to Rs. 2,55,000/-. Since, the disability in the case of the appellant as per A.W. 3, Dr. S.K. Pathak, and as per the certificate (Ex. 16) issued is 37.5% the compensation would be 37.5% of Rs. 2,55,000/- which is equal to Rs. 95,625/- (Rs. ninety-five thousand six hundred twenty-five only).

6. However, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the appellant deserves to be dealt with under Item No. 5 of Second Schedule. This argument in my view does not hold good as Item No. 5 refers the loss of income, if any for the actual period of disablement plus in the case of total disablement, the amount payable is to be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation as has been held by him above. At the time of accident, the appellant was the non-earning person and since in the Second Schedule it is a specific provision made for the contingency of the non-earning persons. Item No. 5 is not attracted and the case would be governed by the Item No. 6 of the Second Schedule.

7. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the appellant