JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out of a motor accident's claim. On 23.2.1987, the claimant Kalyan was riding on a motor vehicle. He met with an accident by collision with a truck driven by Hazariram. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered injuries and ultimately, his right leg was amputated and he suffered multiple fractures in his left leg. 2. The claimant-appellant, who was 24 years of age at the time of the accident was working as a Hamal in a transport company, claimed his earning at that time Rs. 50/- per day. He also claimed to have earned Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per day from his business of sewing gunny bags, in addition to his regular income of Hamali. He further claimed that because of accident, he became incapable of earning his livelihood by doing the work of Hamali. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,17,600/- which included Rs. 50,000/- as General damages, Rs. 10,000/- as expenses on treatment and Rs. 57,600/- as loss of income. 3. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation claiming that the amount awarded as compensation was grossly inadequate. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and having perused the record of the case, I find that there is no scope for interference with the compensation awarded under the Heads of General Damages and expenses on medical treatment. 5. However, the compensation for loss of income granted by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal does not appear to be adequate. There is no basis for holding that the claimant-appellant was earning Rs. 200/- per month only and would have continued to earn that amount for the next two decades. Actually, the claimant-appellant had claimed in his claim petition that he was earning Rs. 50/- per day from Hamali in addition to Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per day from his business of sewing gunny bags. Thus, according to the claimant-appellant, he was earning about Rs. 1800/- per month at the time of accident. 6. In his statement before the Tribunal, the claimant-appellant has stated that he was earning Rs. 50/- to Rs. 60/- per day from Hamali and Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per day from his business of sewing gunny bags. Thus, according to the claimant-appellant, he was earning about Rs. 1800/- per month at the time of accident. 6. In his statement before the Tribunal, the claimant-appellant has stated that he was earning Rs. 50/- to Rs. 60/- per day from Hamali and Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per day from his business of sewing gunny bags. There being no of evidence to the contrary, it was improper to scale down the income to Rs. 200/- per month. From the record, his income can safely be presumed to be about Rs. 500/- per month. There is, therefore, a case for enhancement of compensation upgrading the assessment of monthly income from Rs. 200/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month. The working span of the life of the claimant has been assessed to be 24 years. There does not appear to be any reason to disturb that. Thus, the amount for compensation on this count would be 500x12x24, which comes to Rs. 1,44,000/-. Thus, the above amount of compensation for loss of income along with the amount of general damages awarded comes to Rs. 1,94,000/-. Looking to the fact that interest from the year 1987 will be chargeable, a sizeable sum would be available to the claimant which if kept in a fixed deposit will fetch monthly return of over Rs. 2,000/- per month. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the liability of the Insurance Company would be limited to Rs. 1,50,000/- only. Heard on this aspect also. I have perused the insurance policy dated 13.8.1986. From the perusal of the above Insurance Policy, it is clear that extra premium was charged for enhancing the limit from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is, therefore, clear that liability of the Insurance Company would be upto Rs. 3,00,000/-. Therefore, there is no force in the argument that the liability of the insurance Company was upto Rs. 1,50,000/- only. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 8. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the compensation amount is raised from Rs. 1,17,600/- to Rs. 2,04,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- against general damages; Rs. 10,000/- against expenses on treatment and Rs. 1,44,000/-against loss of income). The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 7.5.1987. 9. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******