The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a victim to just compensation for permanent disablement in a motor vehicle accident, including compensation for pain, suffering, loss of income, medical expenses, future treatment, and loss of expectation of life.

JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - The sole appellant Jagdish is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation decided by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk for permanent disablement of the appellant in a motor vehicle accident. Hence this appeal.

2. One Ram Kishan Meena lodged Duni PS Case No.194/1999 regarding the accident wherein Ram Kishan Meena stated that he had gone to take a holy dip at Pushkar alongwith Giriraj and the appellant Jagdish. after taking holy dip, all the three were returning to their village. at Dolta Mor, they took a lift on Truck No.HR-36-G-9282. The driver gave them seat in the cabin of the truck. The truck was loaded with stone chips. Near Dhadholi Puliya, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, the truck turned turtle. The informant and the appellant Jagdish sustained serious injuries on their body whereas Giriraj Meena lost his life. after investigation of the case, the police submitted charge sheet against the driver of the truck vide Ex-2.

3. The legal representatives of the deceased, the appellant and Ram Kishan filed separate claim cases for compensation. The case filed by the appellant was Claim Case No.(1131/2001) (510/99) 327/2011. all the cases were initially decided by the judgment and award dated 14.05.2002 whereunder the appellant was awarded Rs.2,50,000/- against his claim of Rs.6,94,000/-. The appellant challenged the inadequacy of the compensation in S.B. Civil Misc. appeal No.1440/2002. after hearing the parties, a Bench of this Court by judgment dated 12.07.2011 remitted back the matter to the Tribunal to decide issue Nos.2 & 6 afresh considering judgment of this Court in K.G. Saxena Vs. anil Kumar & Ors., reported in 2006 RaR page 43 (Rajasthan).

The two issues were; (a). is the claimant entitled for compensation from the respondents; and (b) What should be the compensation amount. Learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award dated 01.03.2012 awarded Rs.2,62,640/- to the claimant alongwith interest of 7% from the date of application dated 10.09.1999 till recovery.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Sandeep Mathur submits that the claimant stated his age as 50 years in the claim petition and 52 years at the time of his deposition in this Court after two years of the filing of the claim petition. The doctor simply on assessment, recorded age of the claimant as 55 years without any forensic examination for age determination. In the circumstance, learned Tribunal fell in error, while applying multiplier, in taking age of the appellant as 55 years relying on the medical report which was based on conjectures and surmises. Since the age of the appellant was in the slab of 45 to 50 years, he was entitled for a multiplier of 13.

Learned counsel next contends that the learned Tribunal without any rhyme and reason did not accept the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month from his business of green grocery. Learned counsel contends that the Tribunal arbitrarily adopted the daily wages rate of the time which was Rs.60 while deciding multiplicand. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Vs. Mohan and Others, reported in (2018) 4 SCC 571, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the claim of the appellant's earning of Rs.6000/- per month as the appellant was a carpenter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the amount was not unreasonable or contrary to the realistic assessment of the situation on the date of accident. Learned counsel next contends that the Tribunal fell in error in not awarding any compensation under the head, future prospect, expenses incurred during treatment, extra nursing meeted out nor the Tribunal made any apportionment under the head, expenses for attendant and future treatment. a meager amount was allowed for pain, suffering and loss of amenities.

5. Mr. Gaurav Jain learned counsel for the respondent-The New India assurance Company Limited contends that since the offending