JUDGMENT :

1. This is the claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 01.05.2019 passed in Claim Case No.1065/2015.

2. The appellant injured claimed compensation of Rs.28,00,000/-by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1988’) for the injuries sustained in the motor accident on 08.09.2015.

3. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that appellant Premnarayan sustained injuries in the motor accident on 08.09.2015 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Car bearing registration No. RJ14-CJ-9830 and as the offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was insured with respondent No.3 – Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

4. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs.5,382/-per month and by applying a multiplier of 17 computed compensation of Rs.2,42,755/-towards the loss of income and considering the permanent disability as 22.11% awarded a sum of Rs.3,85,147/-, the break up of which is as under:-

5. Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition.

The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the following grounds:-

(A) Learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the injured considering him semi-skilled labour and applying the prevalent rates on the date of occurrence as per the Notification of the Labour Department, whereas, the appellant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

(B) The award under the head of physical pain and mental agony is inadequate considering the fact that the claimant sustained a permanent disability of 22.11%, received grievous injuries and remained admitted in the Hospital for 8 days.

(C) The interest awarded to the tune of 7.5% per annum is inadequate and the claimant is liable to get 12% interest on the awarded money.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that despite recording the fact regarding disability of the claimant to ply the vehicle in future and loss of earning capacity, learned Tribunal did not asses the future prospects and awarded a meager award under the head of pain & sufferings.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company justified the compensation awarded to the appellant under the various heads and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Analysis:-

8. Whether the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the injured considering him semi-skilled labour and applying the prevalent rates on the date of occurrence as per the Notification of the Labour Department, whereas the appellant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month?

9. On the above fact, the claimant failed to prove his monthly income as Rs.15,000/-per month. Apart from oral evidence, no credible proof was produced indicating his income as Rs.15,000/-per month.

10. In the absence of income proof, learned Tribunal considered him a driver and after taking notice of the prevalent rates applicable for the daily wagers computed his monthly salary as Rs.5,382/- per month applicable for semi-skilled workers.

11. As per the Labour Department Notification issued from time to time under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act drivers plying Light Motor Vehicles and Heavy Motor Vehicles fall in the category of Skilled Labours. Learned Tribunal though considered him a driver but placed the claimant in the category of Semi Skilled Labour. The above view