ASHOK K. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 9. 8. 2001, passed by 4th Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Mandsaur in Claim Case no. 114 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE appellant met with a motor road accident and sustained injuries; thereby he filed a claim petition before the learned tribunal, claiming compensation for the loss caused to him due to the accident. The gist of the case of the claimant-appellant is that on 20. 10. 2000, he was going on a bicycle from his house towards Mandsaur for attending his work as he was a labourer and was working as hammal. Near the bridge over Shivna river, bus bearing registration No. MKU 7718, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 dashed against him. Due to the impact the appellant sustained injuries and fracture was caused in clavicle bone of his right hand and in scapula. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the appellant was paralysed and has become permanently disabled. He had spent about rs. 1,50,000 in his treatment and about rs. 25,000 in taking special diet. He had also suffered physical pain and mental agony. He was aged 25 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 4,000 p. m. by working as a labourer. After the accident he has been paralysed and become permanently disabled and he is unable to earn his livelihood. He claimed a sum of rs. 10,89,000 in all as compensation. ( 3 ) THE respondents opposed the claim and filed their respective written statements. The learned Tribunal, after framing and trying the issues accepted the claim of the appellant in part and passed an award of Rs. 1,69,000 in favour of the appellant against respondents. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of the award appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to him. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 who was driving the vehicle. Learned Tribunal has also found that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident and sufferec permanent disablement due to injuries. No cross-appeal is before us. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 who was driving the vehicle. Learned Tribunal has also found that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident and sufferec permanent disablement due to injuries. No cross-appeal is before us. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident, negligence of the respondent, the fact of appellant receiving injuries, etc. have become final and binding on respondents. The liability of insurance company has also not been questioned. ( 5 ) LEARNED Claims Tribunal has held that due to the injury the earning capacity of the appellant must have been affected to the extent of 50 per cent. Thus, according to the findings of the Tribunal itself the appellant will be able to earn only half of the amount than what he was earning prior to the accident. Learned Tribunal has computed the loss of income to be Rs. 750 p. m. only, which, in our view, is on somewhat lower side. The appellant is a young man and at the time of accident was aged about 25 years and he was working as a hammal in a 'daal Mill'. Though, there is no documentary evidence to decide the exact earnings of the appellant, but in the tacts and circumstances of the case it can he assumed that appellant might have been earning Rs. 2,000 p. m. and his earning capacity, due to the accident, has been decreased by 50 per cent. Therefore, the loss of earnings can be computed at Rs. 1,000 p. m. Appellant was between the age group of 25 and 30 years, therefore, for computing the loss a proper multiplier would be 18, while the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16. Thus, the multiplier selected by learned Tribunal is also on lower side. The proper multiplier shall be 18. Thus, the loss of income caused to the appellant comes to Rs. 12,000 x 18 = Rs. 2,16,000. Learned Tribunal has allowed Rs. 10,000 for the expenses incurred on treatment, special diet, etc. and Rs. 15,000 towards ( 6 ) THUS, according to us the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000 as compensati on from the respondents, jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 2,16,000. Learned Tribunal has allowed Rs. 10,000 for the expenses incurred on treatment, special diet, etc. and Rs. 15,000 towards ( 6 ) THUS, according to us the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000 as compensati on from the respondents, jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondents to bear cost of the appellant throughout. The counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. .