JUDGMENT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. By way of the present appeal the appellant seeks enhancement in the compensation amount over and above the amount of Rs. 92,730/- awarded by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.07.1998. To deal with the contention raised by the parties it would be appropriate to give brief summary of facts of the present case.
2. On 02.07.1992 at about 12:15pm, Shri Johri Lal was going on his rickshaw along with his son to Shstri Nagar. When he reached Jakhira flyover, a truck bearing registration No. HNT 4217 came from the direction of Punjabi Bagh at a high speed and hit the cycle rickshaw. As a result, both Shri Johri Lal and his son fell down and the front right wheel of the truck passed over the right leg of Shri Johri due to which he sustained crush injuries. He was removed to Deen Dayal Hospital from where he was referred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, where his right leg below knee was ampulated.
3. Mr. M.L. Mahajan, counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the correct income of the appellant was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal as he was earning between Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- per month from his avocation of a hawker. The counsel also sought to challenge the impugned Award on the ground that the Tribunal has not granted separate amount of compensation for the permanent disability suffered by the appellant. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had suffered 40% of the disability as his right leg was amputated below the knee. Counsel further contends that even the aspect of future increase has not been taken into consideration and even the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is not correct. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF and Ors. , Swatantra Kumar v. Qamar Ali and Ors. and of the Division Bench reported in Rattan Lal Mehta v. Rajinder Kapoor and Anr. .
4. Per contra Mr. K.L. Nandwani counsel appearing for the insurance company refutes the said submission made by the counsel for the appellant. Mr. Nandwani contends that every case has to be decided in its own peculiar facts and, therefore, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellant cannot be made straightway applicable to the facts of the present case. Mr. Nandwani contends that the Tribunal has granted a very fair compensation keeping in view the injuries suffered by the appellant and, therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned Award.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. The appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% as duly certified by the Medical Board vide medical certificate exhibit PW 2/A, which is duly proved on record. The said 40% disability has been taken as 30% for the whole body and I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award taking the disability to the extent of 30% for the whole body. The appellant was 44 years of age at the time of accident and the multiplier applied in the present case is as per the law prior to the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act. In any event of the matter the Tribunal has not taken care to award any compensation for the permanent disability suffered by the appellant and for the loss of amenities in his life due to the said amputation of his right leg. The accident in the present case had occurred on 2.7.1992 and the appellant continue to suffer not only till date, but during his entire life due to the said disablement of amputation of his right leg below the knee. I, therefore, award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of permanent disability suffered by the appellant. The compensation of Rs. 55,080/- has been granted by the Tribunal, but the same is towards loss of his income due to the 30% disablement and the same is not towards permanent disability as wrongly held by the Tribunal in the impugned Award. The wages of the appellant has been determined in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act and it is a settled legal position that once the wages of a person are determined under the Minimum Wages Act then he is entitled to increase in the minimum wages. One can take judicial notice of the fact that the minimum wages gets increased at least twice in a year and the same get almost more then double within a period of 10 years, therefore, safely the wages, which have been determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 1275/- as on the relevant date of accident can be taken to have doubled to the amount of Rs. 2,550/- and taking the average of the same the monthly income of the appellant would come to Rs. 1,912.50 or Rs. 22,950 per annum.
7. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 12 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year 1992 and at that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles act was not brought on the statute books. The said schedule came on the statute book in the year 1994 and prior to 1994 the law of the land as laid down by the Honble Apex Court in 1994 SCC (Cri) 335, G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, held the field. In the said judgment it was observed by the Court that maximum multiplier of 16 could be applied by the Courts, which after coming in to force of the II schedule has risen to 18.
8. The multiplier of 12 has been applied in the present case as the appellant was 40 years of age at the time of accident. Although the Second Schedule was inserted in the Statute book in the year 1994, but since the present appeal is pending since the year 1998, therefore, analogy of the Second Schedule can be drawn so as to apply the correct multiplier. The multiplier between the age of 35-40 years under the Second Schedule is 16, therefore, the said multiplier can be applied in the facts of the present case also. The amount of compensation on account of loss of income would come to Rs. 1,10,160/-. The appellant now shall be entitled to differential amount of Rs. 1,30,080/-, which shall be paid by respondent No. 3 insurance company along with up to date interest from the date of filing of the petition @ 6% per annum till realization.