ORDER Maheshwari, J. -- 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 20.11.2003 in Claim Case No. 08/03, passed by the 3rd Additional Claims Tribunal, Satna whereby compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- has been awarded regarding permanent disability caused to the appellant in a vehicular accident. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that on 5.11.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. Appellant along with her grand mother and Sunita was going on the left side of Satna-Maihar road at the same time bus bearing Registration No. M.P. 19-D12602 driven in rash and negligental manner by respondent No.1 came there and by leaving the road dashed to all these pedestrian, resultantly, Rarnkali was succumbed to death on spot and the left leg of the appellant was crushed, under the wheel, immediately after a report was lodged with the police Uchehara and after investigation respondent No.1 was charge sheeted under the provisions of IPC. 3. According to claim petition on the date of incident respondent No. 2 was registered owner of bus, while the same was insured with respondent No.3. 4. Appellant has further pleaded that after the incident she was shifted to hospital where her left leg was chopped off from the upper side of knee and she has became handicapped for remaining life. It has also been pleaded that her future has become not only dark but her dreams of matrimonial life has been destroyed before solemnization it only in the age of 10 years. She further pleaded that her education career has also become in dark and filed a claim for compensation of Rs. 10,65,000/-. 5. Respondent No. 1 has denied the allegation of negligental act and pleaded that atrendum the rod of steering was broken, resultantly Kamani Patta of front side of the bus was also broken, so bus did not remained under the control and met the accident. It was also pleaded that said bus was insured with respondent No.3. Therefore, no liability can be leveled against respondents No. 1 and 2. 6. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company has pleaded that the time of incident respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective licence, it was also pleaded that appellant has filed claim with the collusion of respondents No. 1 and 2. Therefore, no liability can be leveled against respondents No. 1 and 2. 6. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company has pleaded that the time of incident respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective licence, it was also pleaded that appellant has filed claim with the collusion of respondents No. 1 and 2. It was further pleaded that respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. On framing issues, trial was proceeded and on appreciation, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 8. Counsel for appellant submits that due to this incident appellant has lost her left leg and she cannot move in her life without any assistance of any family attendant, even she is not in a position to walk independently and in the age of only 10 years she became 100% permanent disabled. So, her future has also been destroyed, now she could not get marry according to her choice and even after marriage she would not be in a position to enjoy the married life in a normal course. Beside this, it is also submitted that in such a circumstances her education career has 3lso been come in dark and deprived to make good career and prayed for enhancement of compensation up to Rs. 5,00,000/-. 9. While on the other hand counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that looking to 10 years age of appellant the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and it does not require any enhancement or modification at the stage of appeal and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 10. In order to consider the aforesaid submissions, on perusing the award, we are of the considered view that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very lower side and it requires enhancement for the following reasons: (a) The appellant has lost her left leg from above knee level and as per evidence on record 78% permanent disability has been caused. (b) After spending a huge amount over her treatment, surgery etc. aforesaid injury could not be cured by any means. (c) She would be required to be attended a regular attendant to look after her personal work for remaining life. (b) After spending a huge amount over her treatment, surgery etc. aforesaid injury could not be cured by any means. (c) She would be required to be attended a regular attendant to look after her personal work for remaining life. (d) She has become handicapped and it is a normal tradition of society that no smart boy would be willing to marry with her, so she would not get the life partner according to her choice and by this way she has to face the mental pain and torture for remaining life. (e) Even if she would marry, she would not be in a position to enjoy the matrimonial life in a normal course. (f) She is unable to earn and has lost earning capacity. 11. In the case at hand, the appellant has lost her leg and it is a settled position that awarded amount of compensation in such a case should be more in comparison to a fatal case. Therefore, by adopting principles of second, schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, if the notional income of the appellant is assumed Rs. 15,000/- per annum and reasonable multiplier of 15 is applied, then the appellant is entitled for compensation regarding loss of earning capacity Rs. 2,25,000/- and the same is awarded. In addition to it Rs. 50,000/- for physical pain, mental agony and suffering Rs. 50,000/ regarding demunition of chances of matrimonial life. Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for special diet are also awarded, thus total amount of compensation comes (2,25,000+50,000+50,000+20,000+5,000) = Rs. 3,50,000/- (Three lacs fifty thousand). The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition and amount shall be payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 12. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to cost.