Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act by the claimant against an award dated 13. 8. 2001 passed by the second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, khargone in Claim Case No. 122 of 1999. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,65,000 with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to the claimant, i. e. , appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in compensation awarded and if so to what extent? ( 2. ) HEARD the counsel for parties. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was aged 17 years at the time of accident and he was working as cleaner. It is submitted that on account of accident, left leg above knee and left hand above elbow of appellant has been amputated. Appellant was hospitalised on 19. 10. 1999 at M. Y. Hospital from where he was referred to Curewell Hospital where the appellant remained from 21. 10. 1999 to 10. 11. 1999. ( 4. ) AFTER framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,65,000 break-up of which is as under: ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that income of the appellant has been assessed as Rs. 1,200 per month and after deducting 50 per cent of the amount and applying the multiplier of 16, learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000 on account of loss of income. The learned counsel submits that income of the appellant was Rs. 2,700 per month as cleaner for which evidence was adduced. Because of the amputation of left hand and left leg, it was a case of 100 per cent permanent disability, therefore, there was no justification in deducting 50 per cent of the amount of income. ( 6. The learned counsel submits that income of the appellant was Rs. 2,700 per month as cleaner for which evidence was adduced. Because of the amputation of left hand and left leg, it was a case of 100 per cent permanent disability, therefore, there was no justification in deducting 50 per cent of the amount of income. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for appellant placed reliance upon a decision in the matter of suneel Kumar v. Basant, 2006 (1) MPWN 2 , wherein in a case of amputation of right hand and right leg of victim aged 30 years, a Division Bench of this court has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 where earning of the victim was Rs. 1,000 per month. ( 7. ) FURTHER reliance was placed upon a decision in the matter of Yashoda v. Umesh singh Patel, 2006 (2) MPWN 326, wherein in a case of amputation of left leg of a girl aged 10 years, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 was awarded holding that life of the girl had been ruined including her education and the chance of marriage with a suitable boy of her choice. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that since the appellant was aged 17 years at the time of accident, therefore, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied keeping in view the law laid down in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC), wherein it was held that for the age group of 21 to 25 years, highest multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. ( 9. ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 supports the award and submits that it was a case of contributory negligence and amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. ( 10. ) FROM perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that accident occurred when the offending truck was driven by its driver in reverse gear and driver of the vehicle Kailash has been examined as NAW 1. There is nothing on record, on the basis of which it can be said that appellant who was cleaner was at fault in any manner. In view of this, the findings of the learned tribunal that appellant was equally liable for the accident cannot be allowed to sustain and the same is set aside. There is nothing on record, on the basis of which it can be said that appellant who was cleaner was at fault in any manner. In view of this, the findings of the learned tribunal that appellant was equally liable for the accident cannot be allowed to sustain and the same is set aside. So far as amount of award is concerned, looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount awarded appears to be on lower side. The appellant has to suffer for whole of his life. On the basis of evidence on record, it can safely be said that income of the appellant can be assessed as Rs. 2,000 per month. This amount can safely be multiplied by 18. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for the following amount: ( 11. ) THUS, the appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 instead of rs. 1,65,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent per annum from the date of application. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.