ORDER

This appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been preferred against the award dated 21.04.2011 passed in Claim Case No. 105/2011, whereby the award of Rs. 1,94,869/- with interest of Rs. 6% from the date of 31.07.2009 has been awarded 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured submits that 25% disability assessed by the learned claim tribunal in para 14 of the award is in lesser side looking to the statement of Dr. Sandeep Sharma (AW-2). The age of the injured on the date of accident have been undisputedly found 40 years. In such circumstances, as per para 42 of the decision of the Apex Court Sarla Vermavs.

Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 , multiplier of 15 should have been used but learned claims tribunal failed in error in applying the multiplier of 12. In the head of future prospects, no amount has been given. The finding of contributory negligence is also erroneous as accident was caused by tata indigo car which is a larger vehicle than motorcycle used by the injured. On the above ground, learned counsel for the appellant prays for enhancing the award amount by allowing the appeal and dismissing the cross objection raised by the respondents/insurance company.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned award submits that learned claims tribunal has rightly assessed the disability to 25% as there was no other evidence is available in this regard. He fairly submits that amount in the head of future prospects may be awarded. He further submits that multiplier of 15 should have been used as per mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) but learned counsel drawing attention of this court towards the cross objection by insurance company raised on 14.09.2011 submit that proper court fees was not paid at the time of filling of appeal, therefore. interest be paid only after filing of the court fees. Learned counsel further prays for dismissing the appeal on other ground has raised on behalf of the appellant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5 Before dwelling upon the contention of appellant regarding his permanent disability, pronouncement of the Apex Court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2022) 13 SCC 790 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 752 at page 813 3 JJs bench may be aptly referred in which in para 20 it has been observed as under :

“ 20 . One more decision, Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande [Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande, (2017) 3 SCC 351 : (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 276 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 178] too had dealt with the precise aspect of assessing the quantum of ermanent disablement. The victim was aged about 30 years, working as a chartered accountant for various institutions for which he was paid professional fees. The injuries suffered by him resulted in severe impairment of movement; he had problems in climbing stairs, back trouble while sleeping, etc. A rod was implanted in his leg. He suffered 70% permanent disability, and mental and physical agony. This Court enhanced the compensation, observing the proper manner to calculate the extent of disability : (Raj Kumar case [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] , SCC pp. 349-50, paras 9-11) “9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body . If there is 60% permanent disa