The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation based on the impact of permanent disability on the appellant's earning capacity, rejecting the addition of future prospects to the appellant's income.

PRATYUSH KUMAR, J.

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act'), is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.9.2006 passed by Shri O.P. Agrawal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jhansi in MACP No.312 of 2004 (Ajul Kumar v. Rajendra Prasad), seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

2. Briefly stated the said claim petition was filed on behalf of appellant/claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') under Section 166 of the 1988 Act stating therein that the appellant was aged about 14 years, he was a student of Class VII. On 8.12.2003 at about 11 A.M. in front of Community Health Centre (CHC), Bangara, P.S. Ualdan, District Jhansi when the appellant was returning from Barat Pura on Tractor No. UP-93-J-9829, the driver of the tractor drove the tractor rashly and negligently and dashed with trolley attached with Escort Tractor No. U.P.-93-F-3622, in the accident three fingers of the appellant were severed. First, the appellant was treated at CHC, Mauranipur, thereafter at Medical College, Jhansi. On the treatment Rs. 30,000/- were spent. The appellant was a very brilliant student, after completion of studies he could have joined a very good service and earned a handsome amount, now he was physically disabled. Neither he would get any service nor he would be able to do any private business. Request has been made that a sum of Rs. 6,55,000/- along with interest be awarded against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending Tractor No. No. UP-93-J-9829.

3. Respondent/opposite party filed a written statement, whereby admitted the ownership of the said tractor. Other averments of the claim petition had been denied. In the additional pleas it has been stated that the respondent had purchased the tractor for agricultural purposes. It was never used for carrying any marriage party. No FIR about the accident had been lodged. The appellant has filed the claim petition on a concocted story, he has not suffered any permanent disability.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, two issues were framed during the final hearing, respondent absented and the learned tribunal recorded ex parte evidence. Hira Lal, PW-1, Yogendra Kumar Soni, PW-2 were examined. Thereafter, impugned judgment and award have been passed and appellant has been awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation along with 5% simple interest per annum.

5. Aggrieved with the judgment and award, the appellant have preferred the present appeal learned counsel Sri Vinod Kumar Soni, Advocate for the appellant has been heard at length.

6. On behalf of appellant, it has been argued that inadequate compensation has been awarded, 40% disability has not been taken into consideration. He submits that proper medical and other expenses have not been reimbursed, no amount has been added in the head of future prospects and physical pain and mental suffering. The impugned judgment and award are against material on record and law, they deserve to be set aside.

7. In support of the above arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has referred the following cases;

1. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 Law Suit (SC) 613. In reference to determine of amount of compensation.

2. Neerupam Mohan Mathur v. New Indian Assurance Company, 2013 Law Suit (SC) 550. In reference to disability vis-a-vis loss of earning capacity.

Before we start appreciating the arguments, we would like to refer the relevant paras whereupon reliance has been placed. In Sarla's Verma's case (supra) reliance has been placed and para nos. 17 and 24 of the report, they are quoted hereinunder:-

"17. The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was amended by Act 54 of 1994, inter alia inserting Section 163-A and the Second Schedule with effect from 14.11.1994. Section 163A of the MV Act contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in the Second Schedu