The compensation awarded in motor accident cases should be just and proper, taking into account the income-earning capacity of the victim, future prospects, and the extent of injuries, pain, suffering, and loss.

1. - Instant appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant-appellant seeking enhancement of the award dated 11/01/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur in claim case No.63/2003 by which a compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,314/- has been awarded to the claimant-appellant.

2. The brief facts, as emerging on the face of record gathered on perusal of the material available on record, impugned order and as per the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, are that on 08/09/2002, when the claimant-appellant was standing nearby Truck Union Stand, Main Chowki, Sawaimadhopur, respondent No.1-Sahid, driver of Truck bearing No.RJ-14-1G-1073, suddenly took the truck in back side in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed, resulting in causing accident of the claimant-appellant and sustaining grievous injuries.

3. The claimant-appellant submitted claim petition before the Tribunal impleading the driver and owner of the bus as respondents No. 1 & 2 and since the bus was insured with the insurance company, the insurance company was impleaded as respondent No.3. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the claimant-appellant was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and was working as a Driver and despite being an experienced man in the field of driving, he has been unable to discharge his duties on account of the said accident. It was further pleaded that due to the said accident, apart from sustaining various injuries including fracture of Ulna Bone of left hand, there was fracture of neck of joint of femur bone of hip and injury in right elbow and claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,63,000/-.

4. The respondents No.1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the truck filed joint reply denying the averments made in the claim petition and it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck but the claimant-appellant himself was negligent. It was further contended that the driver of the truck was having valid driving licence and the truck was duly insured with the respondent No.3-Insurance Company. As regards the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, it filed its reply thereby admitting that the truck was insured for the period in question but at the same time asserted that the said truck was not involved in the accident. It was further contended that it was negligence of the claimant-appellant himself that the alleged incident took place. It was further contended that the driver of the truck was not having valid driving license to drive the truck and there was violation of the conditions of the insurance. It was further contended that the claim has been submitted by hatching false and concocted story by the claimant-appellant and such a claim deserves to be dismissed with cost.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence and material on record, framed as many as four issues including the issue of relief and awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,314/- in favour of the claimant-appellant. Hence the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Counsel for the claimant-appellant submitted that the Tribunal on the basis of assumption and presumption only allowed a meagre amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- only against loss of income which has no basis and the Tribunal ought to have considered the basic income, then should have adopted appropriate multiplier and then should have come to the conclusion. He further contended that the claimant-appellant was a driver and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month but discarding this fact the Tribunal has allowed only an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which is too meagre and cannot be said to be just and proper and contended that the compensation should always be based by adopting the income based on the facts and then appropriate multiplier should have been adopted and thereafter the compensation on the other heads should have been allowed separately.