Honble JAIN, J.–These two appeals have been filed on behalf of claimant-appellants for enhancement of amount of compensation against the judgment/award dated 13.9.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City,Jaipur in MACT Cases Nos. 517/92 & 516/92. (2). Both the appeals are against the same judgment and both relate to the same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. (3). Claim Petition No. 517/92 was filed by the parents of deceased Akaram and Claim Petition No. 516/92 was filed by injured Shabir before the Tribunal. In the claim petitions, it was pleaded that the deceased Akaram and injured Shabir were returning to their home on two-wheeler. They were coming slowly but their two-wheeler was hit by a Jeep belonging to non- applicant No. 2 Raghuveer Singh which was insured with the non- applicant No. 1 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Nehru Place, Jaipur. The deceased Akaram died and injured Shabir became unconscious. The injured Shabir filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 2,74,000/- whereas parents of deceased Akaram filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 15,08,000/-. (4). The non-applicant No. 2 did not appear before the Tribunal, therefore ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him. (5). The non-applicant No. 1-company filed its written reply wherein usual objections were taken but it was not denied that vehicle was insured with it. One of the objections was that the injured did not give immediate information to the company about the incident and further that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues which are re-produced in the impugned judgment. The claimants examined Aslam Khan, Fareed and Mohammed Sazid as applicant witnesses and produced documentary evidence in support of their claim. No witness was examined on behalf of the Assurance company. (6). Learned Tribunal vide its judgment/award dated 13.9.1994 allowed both the claim petitions and passed an award of Rs. 65,000/- in favour of parents of deceased Akaram and or Rs. 10,000/- in favour of injured Shabir. The Tribunal held that the accident took place because of negligence on the part of non- applicant No. 2 driver. While discussing and deciding issue No. 2 relating to quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 65,000/- in favour of parents of deceased Akaram and or Rs. 10,000/- in favour of injured Shabir. The Tribunal held that the accident took place because of negligence on the part of non- applicant No. 2 driver. While discussing and deciding issue No. 2 relating to quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of death of Akaram to his parent-claimants and Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental agony etc. Out of this total amount of Rs. 65,000/- Rs. 25,000/- was deducted which was paid under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act. So far as compensation in favour of claimant Shabir is concerned, the Tribunal recorded finding that there were two simple injuries sustained by Shabir, therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of two simple injures, Rs. 1200/- was awarded for loss of income and Rs. 1531/- was awarded on account of medical bills and about Rs. 2200-2300 were awarded for other expenses. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded in favour of injured Shabir. (7). I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record of the Tribunal including the statement of applicant witnesses and documentary evidence including injury report and operation-note of Shabir. (8). Learned counsel for the appellants submits that so far deceased Akaram is concerned, the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper, just and reasonable compensation for his death arising out of a motor vehicle. He further submits that even minimum wages was not taken into consideration which calculating the amount of compensation. He further submits that the applicant witness Naseeb Khan father of the deceased specifically stated before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000-2500 per month and he used to pay the entire amount to them as he was a bachelor. The another witness Fareed also stated that he was engaged in the business of Nageena and was earning Rs. 80/- per day. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the opposite party has neither cross-examined the applicant witnesses in respect of income of the deceased nor any evidence was produced on their behalf to rebut the evidence of applicant. The another witness Fareed also stated that he was engaged in the business of Nageena and was earning Rs. 80/- per day. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the opposite party has neither cross-examined the applicant witnesses in respect of income of the deceased nor any evidence was produced on their behalf to rebut the evidence of applicant. The submission is that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of applicants witnesses in respect of income of the deceased, as such, the compensation should be calculated as per evidence produced by the applicant-Shabir and the parents of the deceased. He also referred a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in RLW 1999 (1) SC 90 (Shanti Bai and Others vs. Charan Singh and Others) wherein in the similar circumstances and where age of deceased was 18 years, awarded a compensation of Rs. 150,000/-. In the said case, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000/- only as compensation which was enhanced by the Honble Supreme Court to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was ordered to be paid along with interest from the date of the judgment. He submits that the accident was relating to the year of 1991 itself in the above judgment namely Shanti Bai and Others vs. Charan Singh and Others (supra), whereas present case also relates to an accident which took place in the year 1992, therefore, on the basis of judgment of Honble Apex Court a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- may be awarded as compensation along with interest. (9). Learned counsel for the respondent-company has defended the judgment of the Tribunal and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. (10). Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma learned counsel for the respondent company submits that he has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of National Insurance company Ltd. in one appeal No. 147/95. It is needless to mention that on 3.5.2000 itself this court passed an order that although notice was issued to New India Insurance Co. Ltd., but, it was served on the National Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore service was not held proper and fresh notice was issued to the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (11). I have considered the submissions urged on behalf of both the parties. (12). Ltd., but, it was served on the National Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore service was not held proper and fresh notice was issued to the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (11). I have considered the submissions urged on behalf of both the parties. (12). It is true that applicant witnesses have stated about the income of deceased but there is no consistent oral evidence in this regard. There is no documentary evidence available on record in respect of income of the deceased, therefore, it is very difficult to come to a conclusion about the exact income of the deceased. However in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court given in the case of Shanti Bais case (supra), it appears that total compensation awarded in the present case as Rs. 65,000/- is too meager. Even taking a reasonable view of the amount which the deceased would have earned, had he survived. Considering the future economic prospects of the deceased, I deem it fit to increase the award to a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- meaning thereby, the appellants in Appeal No. 147/95 will be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 85,000/-. Learned counsel for both the parties do not dispute that amount of Rs. 65,000/- awarded by Tribunal have already been paid to the claimants appellants. The remaining/additional amount of Rs. 85,000/- shall now be deposited by the respondent-company with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today. The appellants are also entitled for interest on additional amount of Rs. 85,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 15.06.1992 till the deposit of the amount in the Tribunal. (13). So far as appeal No. 146/95 filed by injured Shabir is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal has not referred and appreciated the injuries sustained by injured Shabir. It was wrong on the part of the Tribunal that Shabir sustained only two simple injuries. He has referred Ex. 9- discharge ticket issued by Surgical Unit No. II, S.M.S. Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur wherein it has specifically been mentioned that the injured was admitted on 20.2.1992 and he was operated on 20.2.1992 itself and was discharged from hospital on 3.3.1992. In the aforesaid discharged ticket the ``Type of operation has been mentioned as ``splenectomy, which means ``Surgical removal of the spleen. (14). In the aforesaid discharged ticket the ``Type of operation has been mentioned as ``splenectomy, which means ``Surgical removal of the spleen. (14). Learned counsel for the appellants has referred a judgment of this court rendered in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. ......................(Arvinder Singh vs. Kajod Mal and Others) decided on 30.11.2004 wherein similar type of injury, this court allowed compensation of Rs. 95,605/-. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the case reported in 2002 ACJ 1259 (Shetanbai and Others vs. Ajay Kumar and Others) wherein Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- in respect of rupture of spleen. Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that amount of Rs. 10,000/- is too meagre and it cannot be said to be just and reasonable compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent company has tried to defend the judgment of learned Tribunal but could not give any satisfactory reply to the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants about the Ex. 9 discharged ticket of the claimant Shabir containing type of operation of ``splenectomy. (15). I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and examined the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the claimants. From Ex.8 it is clear that injured Shabir sustained three injuries, injury No. 1 is multiple abrasions as mentioned in the injury report Ex.8, Ex.9 discharge certificate of appellant-Shabir is on record which has been issued by S.M.S. Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur from which it is clear that injured was admitted in hospital for about 13 days and was also got operated on 20th February 1992. The injured claimant was examined as AW-2 who has stated about his income and operation. He has also stated about the loss of income and reduction in his capacity in work. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the oral and documentary evidence made available on record, I deem it fit and proper to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to a lump-sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of claimant appellant Shabir. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- has already been paid to the claimant Shabir. The remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- to a lump-sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of claimant appellant Shabir. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- has already been paid to the claimant Shabir. The remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- will now be deposited with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks by the respondent-company with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e., 15.6.1992 till the deposit of the amount in the Tribunal. (16). The net result is that both the appeals are allowed. The amount of compensation in Appeal No. 147/95 is enhanced from Rs. 65,000/- to Rs. 150,000/-. The amount of compensation in Appeal No. 146/95 is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to 50,000/-. The enhanced amount will be deposited by the respondent company within a period of four weeks from today with the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petitions i.e., 15.6.1992 till the date of deposit of amount in the Tribunal. No order as to costs.