JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.3.1994 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The appellant sustained the injuries on her both the legs due to rash and negligent driving of jeep by its driver respondent No. 1 which was owned by the respondent No. 2 and validly insured with respondent No. 3 on the relevant date of accident. The injury sustained in the left leg ultimately resulted in the amputation of left leg from the knee joint. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of jeep by its driver respondent No. 1. This part of finding has not been challenged by the respondents and as such I need not to discuss the evidence with regard to rash and negligency of the driver. While deciding the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal assessed and awarded in all a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record and award impugned as also the record of the case. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly low and deserves to be enhanced. It was pleaded and proved by the evidence of claimant that the appellant sustained injuries due to the aforesaid accident which took place on 31.3.1991, which resulted in amputation of left leg of the appellant from the knee joint. At the relevant time, she was 40 years of age and a daily rated worker. By undertaking of work of labour at the rate of Rs. 22/- per day, her average monthly income at the relevant time was Rs. 660/-. Appellant examined herself as P.W. 1. She stated that before accident, she was having good health and used to undertake the work of labour by which, her daily earning was Rs. 221-. By undertaking of work of labour at the rate of Rs. 22/- per day, her average monthly income at the relevant time was Rs. 660/-. Appellant examined herself as P.W. 1. She stated that before accident, she was having good health and used to undertake the work of labour by which, her daily earning was Rs. 221-. Soon after the accident, she was taken to Dungarpur Hospital, where she remained admitted for six days, thereafter, she was taken of Modasa (Gujarat) for treatment in a hired jeep. At Modasa she was treated by Dr. B.D. Damore. Her left leg was amputated from the knee joint. She further underwent the operation of skin grafting. She has placed on record the injury report Ex. 3 report by Chintan Orthopaedic Hospital, Modasa and certificate issued by Dr. B.D. Damore (Ex. 4). She has also placed on record the bills by which she incurred expenses on account of her treatment. She has stated that she has incurred Rs. 50,000/- for transportation from the place of accident of Modasa (Gujarat) and back, and Rs. 50,000/- have been incurred on account of her treatment expenses. She further stated that while she was at Modasa, 5-6 persons remained with her as attendants. She has incurred Rs. 5000/- for expenses of attendants. She also stated that Rs. 5000/- were incurred for treatment at Dungarpur Hospital. She underwent terrible physical pain and suffered mental agony. She further stated that she is unable to walk. The statement of P.W. 1 further finds support by the statement of P.W. 2 Kawa husband of appellant. The testimony of claimant's witnesses remained unrebutted. The Tribunal awarded the following compensations : For treatment Expenses Rs. 10,000.00 For Attendants Rs. 05,000.00 For further Loss of Income Rs. 60,000.00 For permanent disablement and for physical pain and mental agony suffered by her Rs. 40,000.00 TOTAL 1,15,000.00 6. It is settled law that in appeal the quantum is interfered only if the compensation is inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, looking to the injuries, amputation of leg and permanent disablement, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate and deserves enhancement. 7. In the case of Prahlad Rai v. Pradeep Kumar & ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 672/94 decided on 10.7.2001 , this Court awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. Obviously, looking to the injuries, amputation of leg and permanent disablement, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate and deserves enhancement. 7. In the case of Prahlad Rai v. Pradeep Kumar & ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 672/94 decided on 10.7.2001 , this Court awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded under the head of physical pain, shock, inconvenience, disablement, mental stress and loss of amenities in life. 8. In Kadir S/o Shri Said v. Moin S/o Ahmad Khan & Ors. (2001 DNJ (Rajasthan) 326) , this Court awarded non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In that case, the claimant injured was a labourer or a Cleaner in the truck and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 54,000/- for non-pecuniary damages. In that case, the injured suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 25% and the injury resulted in shortening of leg by 21/2". Looking to the young age of the claimant, this Court awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- as non- pecuniary damages. 9. In Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF and others, (1998 ACJ 859) , Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 58,000/- to Rs. 4,58,000/- by granting an additional compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Appellant of that case suffered permanent disablement of shortening of his right leg by 3 inches. He was 17 yeas of age and brilliant student of B.Com. In view of the age of the appellant at the time of the accident and the prospects and the adverse effect of his permanent disability as a result of the motor accident, the compensation awarded was further enhanced by Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @12% p.a. from the date of the claim. 10. In Swatantra Kumar v. Qamar Ali & others, (1998) 5 SCC 308 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- to the pillion rider as compensation under the head pain, shock and sufferings. In that case, the injury sustained by the claimant resulted in shortening of his leg by 1.75 inches. 11. In Ashwani Kumar Mishra v. P. Muniam Babu & others, (1999) 4 SCC 22 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 16. Looking to the age of the appellant, the appropriate multiplier as provided in Second Schedule to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is 14 years purchase factor. 12. 11. In Ashwani Kumar Mishra v. P. Muniam Babu & others, (1999) 4 SCC 22 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 16. Looking to the age of the appellant, the appropriate multiplier as provided in Second Schedule to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is 14 years purchase factor. 12. Keeping in view the age, usual deprivation which the appellant has suffered and would suffer in future on account of the permanent disablement as also the loss of amenities of life as in the instant case, the appellant has lost one of the legs from above the knee, therefore, it would he difficult for her to walk, run, sit properly and may not be in a position to drive vehicle or even may find difficulty in moving from one place to another without help of attendants. Taking into account all these facts, in my considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- would be just and proper compensation for physical pain, shock, inconvenience, permanent disablement, mental stress and loss of amenities in life etc. 13. It has been established that at the relevant time, the appellant was earning Rs. 22/- per day. It is settled law that while awarding the compensation, the future prospects of life should also be taken into account and to be counted in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. There is a revision of minimum wages as in the year 1992, the minimum wages were Rs. 32/- per day which has now been revised and enhanced to about Rs. 60/-. Taking into consideration the over all view, the daily income of the appellant is taken to Rs. 44/- per day. The loss of income for present and future for remaining period of life is required to be computed on the basis of percentage of permanent disablement. In the instant case, the appellant's left leg was amputed which resulted in the permanent disablement, if not move at least to the extent of 50-60% and thus, the loss of income is to be computed by selecting the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of appellant which was 40 years on the date of accident. In this view of the matter, it is just and proper to take a minimum loss of income @ Rs. 600/- per month, which further needs to be multiplied by the multiplier of 14 years purchases factor. In this view of the matter, it is just and proper to take a minimum loss of income @ Rs. 600/- per month, which further needs to be multiplied by the multiplier of 14 years purchases factor. Thus, loss of income works out to Rs. 600 X 12 X 14 = 1,00,800/- to this be added general damages for physical pain and suffering as also mental agony suffered and would be suffered for remaining span of life and expenses on treatment, attendants, nourishment of diet etc. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- for treatment expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for attendants. This amount appears to be reasonable compensation and needs no further enhancement. Thus, total compensation comes to (1,25,000 + 1,00,800 + 10,000 +5,000) = Rs. 2,40,800/- rounded to Rs. 2,40,000/-. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,15,000/- to Rs. 2,40,000/-. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum as allowed by the Tribunal from the date of claim application, Respondent No. 3, the Oriental Insurance Company, Dungarpur is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation with the Tribunal and Tribunal is directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest thereon in a Nationalised Bank for a long term fixed deposit and appellant be permitted to withdraw the interest periodically. No order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******