JUDGMENT The appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dabra. Briefly stated the facts are that on 3.12.1994 while the appellant Jagdish, whose left leg was already amputated, .was going on cycle alongwith his brother Ramkishan, with his crutches (Besakhi) was dashed by Fiat - Car No. MBW 185, as a result thereof he sustained serious-injuries. Ramkishan as well as Parmanand also sustained injuries in this accident. The appellant was admitted in the hospital on 3.12.1994 where he was treated. He was discharged on 11.12.1994. The report was lodged at Police Station Dabra by Feransingh, father of appellants Jagdish and Ramkishan. Crime No. 495/94 was registered for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC against Shyamsunder Das, driver of the vehicle. Respondent No.2 Mohanlal is the owner of the vehicle, which is insured with respondent No.3 Insurance Company. Claim case 18/95 was preferred by Ramkishan whereas Claim case No.19/95 was preferred by appellant Jagdishand Claim case No. 24/95 was preferred by Parmanand, for compensation before the Claims Tribunal. The respondents filed the reply denying the claim. The learned Claims Tribunal, on the basis of material on record found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent No.1, therefore directed that the respondents are liable to pay Rs. 42,000/towards compensation to the appellant Jagdish, whereas Ramkishan was directed to be paid Rs. 4,500/- and claimant Parmanand was directed to be paid Rs.3,000/-. The matter is considered in paras 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32. Counsel for the appellant contended that the amount which has been awarded is too meagre looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant. It is contended that the appellant/claimant was the agriculturist and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence in this regard of the father of the appellant, named Farensingh has not been considered by the tribunal. He stated in para 4 of his evidence that appellant Jagdish was earning Rs. 5000/- per month. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in any case, under the Second Schedule under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the income for non-earning member is determined at Rs.15,000/- per annum, as such, the Tribunal ought to have considered before reaching at a conclusion. 5000/- per month. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in any case, under the Second Schedule under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the income for non-earning member is determined at Rs.15,000/- per annum, as such, the Tribunal ought to have considered before reaching at a conclusion. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a case where the appellant's left leg being already amputated, he has now become totally handicapped, on account of this accident and has suffered permanent loss of earning capacity. Besides this, he has now become totally dependent. Counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.3, Shri M.P. Agrawal, is not in a position to dispute this fact that the appellant's left leg was already amputated that he has sustained serious injuries in an accident. He fairly pointed out that on the basis of the evidence on record, the claimant has established the injuries as pointed out by the Dr. Raju Vaishya (A.W.1). in Ex.P/5. Shri Agrawal, counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that Dr. Raju Vaishya while describing injury No.1 had mainly mentioned "left hip" and to that he was confronted 'B' to 'B' and the doctor has admitted that. Ku. Ami Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has suffered permanent disability of 33%, on account of this accident. Shri Agrawal, on the other hand, contended that taking over all facts and circumstances, the disability at the most will be 20%. Having heard counsel for the parties, and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, and especially the fact that under Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the income for non-earning person is assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum, in the opinion of this Court, the loss of earning would be Rs.3,000/- per annum. Therefore, by applying multiplier of 17, looking to his age of 25 years, into the multiplicand of 3,000/- the amount would come to Rs.51,000/- towards loss of income. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 2,000/- for special diet, which is just and proper. For two month's salary, Rs. 1200/- has been determined. Instead of it, Rs. 3,000/- is appropriate. So far as pain and suffering is concerned, Rs. 16,000/- has been assessed, which is on higher side and it should have been Rs. 5,000/-, under the schedule. 6,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 2,000/- for special diet, which is just and proper. For two month's salary, Rs. 1200/- has been determined. Instead of it, Rs. 3,000/- is appropriate. So far as pain and suffering is concerned, Rs. 16,000/- has been assessed, which is on higher side and it should have been Rs. 5,000/-, under the schedule. The appellant, therefore, now entitled to total compensation of Rs. 67,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till realisation. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 42,000/- to Rs. 67,000/-, and the appellant is entitled to get the same amount towards compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, till realisation. The amount already deposited, will be adjusted. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-, if certified.