ORDER

1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 27.1.2020 passed in Claim Case No.300132/2016 by Member, MACT Mandleshwar (West Nimar) District Khargone (MP) wherein, on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant, an award of Rs.1,67,530/- (rupees one lac sixty seven thousand five hundred thirty) has been awarded to him.

2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 26.8.2016, at around 10.30 in the night, the respondent No.1 Vinod Sharma who also happens to be the owner of an Eicher Truck bearing registration number MP-13 GA-5109 dashed the appellant while reversing the aforesaid Eicher, rashly and negligently. The appellant suffered fracture in his pelvis bone and was also hospitalized for two days from 27.8.2016 to 29.8.2016. Doctor has also given him a disability certificate of 30% vide Ex.P/46. Subsequently, the claim case was also filed by the appellant wherein it was pleaded that he was working as a skilled MA No.2582/2020 workman earning around Rs.400/- per day and Rs.12,000/- per month. On account of the aforesaid injuries suffered by him in the accident, he has been totally disabled to perform his work as the skilled labourer (Mason). In the claim case, the learned Member of the MACT, after recording the evidence, has passed the award to the tune of Rs.1,67,530/-.

3. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award is on lower side and has been passed without taking into consideration the grievous injury suffered by the appellant; and is liable to be enhanced. It is further submitted that the learned MACT has considered the monthly income of the appellant to be Rs.4,000/- and has calculated the income by applying the multiplier of ‘17’. Counsel has submitted that the income of the appellant ought to have been considered to be Rs.12,000/- per month for which cogent evidence was also led by him.

4. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the award passed by the learned MACT is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court.

5. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From the record, this Court finds that so far as the various heads of compensation are concerned, the learned MACT has found that the appellant is entitled to receive the amount under the following heads:-

7. In his deposition, the appellant has stated that he was working as a skilled labour and was earning a sum of Rs.400/- per day. However, in his cross examination, he has been suggested by the insurance company that he was earning only a sum of Rs.100/- per day, however, it is not suggested that he was not working as a skilled labour. Learned MACT has come to a conclusion that the appellant was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month, assuming that he was getting work for around 22-25 days per month. In the considered opinion of this Court, the assumption of income of the appellant to be Rs.4,000/- per month appears to be on lower side, looking to the fact that the accident has taken place in the year 2016 and thus, it would be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case to assume the monthly income of the appellant to be Rs.5,000/- per month; and thus the annual income would be Rs.60,000/-. The learned MACT has also held that the appellant has suffered 10% disability which also in the considered opinion of this Court is on lower side and it has to be considered as 15% taking note of the deposition of Dr. Ashish Melhotra (PW-3) who has opined that the appellant has suf