Future prospects can be allowed in calculating compensation in cases where there is a steady source of income, even if the income is earned on a daily, monthly, or seasonal basis.

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 29/09/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur in claim case No.12/2006 by which a compensation to the tune of Rs. 67,000/- 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 21/11/2005 at about 2.30 PM, while the claimant-appellant was standing on Jaipur Road near Devnarayan Temple Gate, all of sudden a Jeep bearing No.RJ-18-C-2665, which was being driven by its driver in rash & negligent manner and in high speed, hit the claimant-appellant causing accident on account of which the claimant-appellant sustained fracture on his right leg and other 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 35 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of working as driver and also from agriculture work. It was further pleaded that due to the said accident, there was fracture in both the legs of the claimant-appellant and due to the said accident, he received 21.18% permanent disability and ultimately claimed for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 29,60,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle filed reply denying the averments made in the claim petition and as regards respondent No.2, owner of the offending vehicle, he filed reply in which it was averred that even if it is assumed that the accident occurred due to negligence of the respondent No.1-driver or that the offending vehicle was involved in causing the accident, then, since the offending vehicle is insured, the liability of paying compensation is of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company. As regard respondent No.3-Insurance Company, it denied the averments made in the claim petition and averred that since the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence and since the driver and owner of the vehicle violated the conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence and material on record, framed as many as four issues including the issue of relief and on the basis of material and evidence available on record, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 67,000/- 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, without any apparent basis or method, has only allowed an amount of Rs. 46,000/- in lump-sum on account of the permanent disability which is wholly unjust and improper whereas in such matters, the compensation ought to have been allowed after computing income and then adopting multiplier and thereafter the other factors also ought to have been taken into consideration. He further contended that the claimant-appellant was a driver and also having his own agricultural income on the basis of ownership of the agricultural land which was claimed to be six bighas and therefore, the income was certainly to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He further contended that the claimant-appellant was aged about 35 years and was a healthy man and on account of this accident has suffered severe and grievous injuries and even as per the medical board certificate the disability is to the extent of 21.18% and after the accident, he has been unable to live/