Prakash Shrivastava, J:

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 30.6.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 222 of 2006.

2. The appellant had suffered injury in an accident which had taken place on 8.4.2006. He had filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 89,000 along with the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition.

3. The Claims Tribunal has found that the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 35 per cent in the right leg and 10 per cent in the right hand. The Tribunal found that the appellant was a truck driver and assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- The Tribunal calculated the permanent disability in reference to the whole body to the extent of 12 per cent and found the age of the appellant to be 33 years and applied the multiplier of 16. Thus, the Tribunal calculated the loss of future earnings to the extent of Rs. 68,800/- The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards physical and mental pain. Rs. 10,000/- towards actual medical expenses, Rs. 4,000/- as attendant expenses and Rs. 2,000/- for transportation charges. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 89,000/-.

4. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the of lending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the appellant and none of those finding, he been challenged at the instance of the respondents, i.e., owner/driver/Corporation by filing cross-appeals or cross-objections. In that view of the matter, it is not neccesary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on those issues.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had committed an error in assessing the permanent disability of 12 per cent in reference to the whole body ignoring the nature of work of the appellant. He submitted that the appellant had suffered 100 per cent permanent disability since he was not able to do the work of the driver. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud, 2008 ACJ 9 (SC).

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 supporting the award of the Claims Tribunal submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the findings recorded by it are just and proper and no interference is required by this court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The medical evidence of Dr. Upadhyay adduced by the appellant indicates that there was shortening of the right leg by 1/1-2 inch and restriction in rotation of right shoulder and hip joint. The appellant had received segmental fracture of femur bone and also fracture of humerus bone of right hand. The doctor opined that the appellant suffered 10 per cent permanent disability in the right hand and there was mal-union of tractor bone of the leg and he suffered 35 per cent permanent disability of leg. The doctor also opined that the appellant will not be able to do the work of driver since there is shortening of leg. The Tribunal has found that the oral evidence of the doctor as well as of the medical certificate given by him has remained un-rebutted.

9. The aforesaid evidence indicates that the appellant will not be able to do the work of the driver. Even if it is assumed that by taking some alternate employment, the appellant will be able to earn some amount then also though it may not be a case of 100 per cent loss of earning capacity but keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunil Kumar (supra), and the nature of injury suffered by the appellant, it is a case of permanent disability to the extent of 45 per cent. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in treating the permanent disability in reference to the whole body only to the extent of 12 per cent. The income assessed and the multiplier which has been applied by the Tribunal are just and proper. Therefore, on the annual income of Rs. 36,000/- 45 per cent loss of earnings due to the permanent disability comes to Rs. 16,200/- and on applying the multiplier of 16 on this amount, the compensation receivable by appellant under the head of loss of earnings comes to Rs. 2,59,200/- Thus, under the head of loss of earnings, the compensation amount is enhanced by Rs. 1,90,400/- The compensation which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the conventional heads, such as physical and mental pai

n; the attendant charges; medical expenses. transportation charges, etc. is also on the lower side and the same is enhanced by a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- in addition. 10. Thus, the appellant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 2,00,400/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The aforesaid enhanced amount will bear interest at the same rate as calculated by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.