While assessing compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, courts should consider factors such as the victim's income, future prospects, disability, and mental pain and agony to determine a just and reasonable award.

1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimant against the judgment cum award dated 23.12.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat in M.A.C. Case No. 48/1995, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,44,950 for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident was partly allowed and he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000.

2. Facts in brief are that on 8.9.1994 the appellant was traveling in a Bus No. RPA-7585 which was proceeding from Gudia to Jaitaran. When the bus reached the Aageva Crossing by-pass, another bus bearing Registration No. Rj-19P-1820 coming from the direction of Nimaj being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by its driver collided with Bus No. RPA-7585 in which the appellant and some other persons were traveling. The appellant as well as the other occupants of the bus received injuries in the accident.

3. The appellant filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,44,950 for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The Tribunal framed usual issues for consideration. It was concluded that the drivers of the two buses involved in the accident drove their respective vehicles in rash and negligent manner and both were held to have contributed equally in causing the accident. The driver, owner and insurer of the Bus No. RJ-19P-1820 and the owners of Bus No. RPA-7585 which was not insured were held jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award to the extent of 50% each. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on these issues have not been challenged and have thus become final. The Tribunal accepted the claim application filed by the appellant in part and awarded him compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000 as stated above. The only issue which now remains alive for consideration of this Court in the appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to any enhancement in the compensation awarded to him.

4. Smt. Shobha Kanwar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal did not appreciate and assess the material available on record appropriately whilst awarding compensation to the appellant. The appellant who was 40 years of age at the time of the accident suffered 25% disablement on the right lower limb due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 12 only whilst calculating compensation under the head of loss of income. No consideration was made for rise in income by future prospects. The appellant was a Mason by profession and also used to earn a substantial sum by farming and dairy activities. The Tribunal wrongly held his income to be a meagre Rs. 1,500 pet month as against the claimant's averment . regarding his income being Rs. 4,000 per month. Thus, she prayed that appropriate enhancement be directed in the compensation awarded to the appellant.

5. Per contra, Mr. D.S. Nimla, Mr. R.S. Chundawat, Mr. Rishi Chauhan and Mr. Ghanshyam Vaishnav, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the appellant and urged that the compensation awarded to the appellant by the Tribunal is just and sufficient and does not call for any enhancement.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award as well as the record.

7. The finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the income of the appellant being Rs. 1,500 per month is unjustified. In view of the evidence available on record and the nature of the appellant's job, his income deserves to be accepted as Rs. 2,000 per month at the time of the accident. Admittedly, the appellant suffered 25% permanent disability due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. In view of the fact that the appellant was 40 years of age at the time of accident, the Tribunal wrongly applied the m