The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation for a motor accident claimant, considering factors such as income, disability, and pain and suffering, as well as the award of interest based on the delay in proceedings.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals M. A. No. 139 of 1995 (New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pradip Kumar) and m. A. No. 373 of 1995 (Pradip Kumar v. Ramchandra) are proposed to be decided by this judgment since they arise out of the same award dated 6. 12. 1994 passed by the 13th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, indore, in Claim Case No. 100 of 1991. M. A. No. 373 of 1995 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation while M. A. No. 139 of 1995 is by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for reduction of the compensation awarded in the case.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY facts are that Pradip Kumar (hereinafter 'the claimant') met with an accident on 8. 1. 1988 when truck No. CII 7461 dashed against his scooter No. CPE 7329. The truck was being driven by Gajraj and was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. As a result of this accident, the claimant was shifted to M. Y. Hospital, indore. Thereafter, he was shifted to Gokul das Hospital, Indore, because better treatment was available there. On account of this accident the claimant suffered injuries on the right leg and lumbar spinal, which are later described in the medical report to the extent of 15 and 70 per cent permanent disability respectively.

( 3 ) THE claimant preferred claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000, later the petition was amended and claim for Rs. 10,00,000 was made. Allegation of the claimant is that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck, otherwise, it would not have taken place. The defence taken by the insurance company is that negligence is attributable to the claimant, who was not driving the scooter in the proper way which resulted in the accident. It is also stated that the claimant did not suffer the disability to the extent of 70 per cent as stated in the certificate. It is stated that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. Owner and the driver of the truck have not come forward to oppose the claim, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. After appreciating the evidence led and hearing the parties the learned Tribunal allowed the claim to the extent of rs. 3,08,369. 80 on all the heads carrying interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the claim application till date of passing of the award thereafter 12 per cent till payment. As stated above, both the parties are not satisfied with this award, therefore, these two appeals have been filed by them challenging the same.

( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

( 5 ) THE first question for determination is whether just compensation has been awarded to the claimant in this case. Since there is no dispute with respect to taking place of the accident at the instance of the driver of truck insured with the New India assurance Co. Ltd. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 25 years old. He was law graduate, who was engaged in his own business under the name and style of 'pradip Kumar and Company, Indore'. He claims that he was earning Rs. 25,000 per annum and was a tax payer. This fact, he has proved by production of income tax return, accounting year 1986-87 and assessment year 1987-88 as also by Exh. P-372, return for the accounting year 1987-88, assessment year 1988-89, only for the nine months. It is submitted that due to this accident, the claimant has been rendered incapable of earning anything. He is undergoing treatment right from the date of accident till date. Nothing has been awarded for the future treatment to be undertaken so the award is to be enhanced. It is also submitted that compensation has been calculated by application of multiplier of 15 though multiplier of 18 is applicable taking into consideration the total incapacity of the claimant. The award of compensation under the head of pain and suffering is low, therefore, deserves to be enhanced.

( 6 ) MR. Surjeet Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted tha