The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings based on the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity, and the application of multipliers based on age groups.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the appellant-claimant against the award dated 01.10.2002, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nathdwara (afterwards referred as Tribunal') in MAC No.62/2002 (168/2000) whereby learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- as compensation money.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a road accident took place on 09.10.1999, in which claimant Rajendra Singh sustained many injuries; injured was going to Kothariya on his motorcycle, near bus stand Nathdwara, offending Truck bearing registration NO.RJ.13.G.0830 hit the motorcycle of the injured. A claim petition was filed by the injured on 06.06.2000 against driver, owner and Insurance Company of the Truck. After due inquiry, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- as compensation in the following term:-

3. Not satisfied with the quantum of award, this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries on his left leg, jaw and nose, for which, Medical Board has assessed 40% permanent disability. Due to injuries sustained by him, he cannot walk properly and is unable to drive motor-cycle; his capacity to earn money has also been reduced substantially. Before the said accident, he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, regarding which, he has placed on record income tax return.

5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal without applying multiplier has assessed the loss of income as Rs.50,000/- only, which is not justified.

6. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and Ors: Civil Appeal No.735/2020: (2020) 4 SCC p.413, learned counsel submitted that as per the income shown in the income tax return and by applying the multiplier of 16 prescribed for the age group of 31 to 35 years, adequate compensation should be awarded to the appellant. It was further contended that for the injuries sustained in the accident, treatment is continuing, for which, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount as also in the head of loss of future amenities in life. Compensation towards loss of earning during the period of treatment, expenses incurred towards attendant charges have also not been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

7. It was also contended that the statement made by the claimant-appellant in examination-in-chief regarding his income has not been rebutted during cross-examination; mental pain and agony has also not been compensated properly. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which should be enhanced to 12% per annum.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in the present case, there is no necessity to award any amount for the loss of future amenity in life. Claimant does not require any further treatment. The victim sustained grievous injuries for which, he can be compensated as per the RSLSA guidelines.

9. In written submissions filed by learned counsel for the respondent, it was submitted that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kajal (supra) is not applicable in view of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case. The said judgment essentially speaks about peculiar facts of the said case of victim of younger age and other family circumstances.

10. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalan D. @ Lal and Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd: Civil Special Appeal No.2855/2020 reported in (2020) 9 SCC 805, learned counsel contended that judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kajal's case is distinguishable to