The court held that the Tribunal erred in computing the appellant's income, disability, and future prospects, and in not awarding compensation for pain and suffering.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter comes up on an application for early hearing of the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

3. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up and heard finally today itself.

4. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18.10.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in Motor Accident Claim Case No.169/2010 whereby the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,28,700/-in favour of the appellant-claimant with an interest @ 7% per annum.

5. The counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal erred while computing income of the appellant to the tune of Rs.1,39,462/- per annum, which is a mean amount of income shown in the Income Tax Certificates of years 2008, 2009 and 2009 respectively. He further submits that appellant's business was flourishing and was in ascending mode. In any case, the income of the appellant in the Income Tax Returns of the assessment year 2010 was shown to be Rs.1,60,011/-. Since, the accident occurred in the month of November, 2009, therefore, there was no reason for the tribunal not to consider the income of the appellant as shown in the Income Tax Return of assessment year 2010 and taking into consideration the Income Tax Return of year 2010, the income of the appellant should have been considered and assessed as Rs.1,60,011/- per annum. He further submits that multiplier of 15 should have been applied by the learned Tribunal for computing the compensation whereas in the instant case, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16.

6. So far as the disability sustained by the appellant in the accident is concerned, the counsel submits that in view of number of fractures suffered by the appellant and as per opinion of the medical board, whereby permanent disability of the appellant was assessed to the extent of 40%, the Tribunal reduced the permanent disability sustained by the appellant to the extent of 25% only without there being any cogent reason. There was no reason for the Tribunal to compute the permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of 25% only and the same should be considered as 40% as the appellant has virtually become disabled even to perform his day-to-day activities and undertake his business with the same energy and ability. He further submits that no amount has been awarded by learned Tribunal towards the future prospects to the appellant in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma V/s Haryana Roadways, 2014 ACJ 692 and Pappu Deo Yadav V/s Naresh Kumar & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 4424. The counsel further submits that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal on issue No.4 is erroneous as the insurance company has been exonerated in the present case from its liability of paying compensation in view of the fact that the driving license held by the driver of the offending vehicle was not proper and valid. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Devangan V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663. liability on the part of insurance company cannot be escaped. The counsel further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards pain and suffering suffered by the appellant in the accident which occurred on 25.11.2009. Therefore, he prays that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may be modified suitably.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the computation of compensation undertaken by the Tribunal is perfectly just and proper and does not call for any interference by this court. He further submits that since the appellant was a businessman, therefore, it cannot be assumed that his business will flourish all the times, therefore, the Tribunal was right in taking average of three years Income Tax Returns for arriving at correct figure of the income earned by the appellant. He further submits that the multiplier applied by the