Judgment Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. Shri Digvijay Mantri appears for the contesting respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of. 3. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident took place on 23.1.2003 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 5.8.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,26,000/-in his favour as under :- Rs. 20,000/- for loss of income for the period his treatment continued, Rs. 10,000/- for physical pain and mental agony, Rs. 40,000/- for 42.90% permanent disability, Rs. 10,000/- for attendant and nutritious food, Rs. 35,000/- for medical bills, Rs. 10,000/- for transportation charges, Rs. 1,000/- for costs of litigation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended only one submission with regard to inadequate amount of compensation awarded under the head of 42.90% permanent disability. He contended that the appellant was 20 years of age and as per the finding of the learned Tribunal, his monthly income was Rs.3,000/-, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under this head, particularly; looking to his future prospects, is inadequate and be enhanced suitably. He further contended that in case the multiplier system is adopted looking to the income and age of the appellant, then this amount is a meager amount. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that looking to the number of injuries and percentage of permanent disability, the overall amount of compensation awarded under this head, is just and reasonable and no interference in it, is called for. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award particularly; the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of the issue No.4 relating to quantum of compensation. So far as the compensation under different heads as mentioned above are concerned, the same have not been challenged, except the amount of compensation under the head of 42.90% permanent disability. It is true that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim nor it can be a bonanza but it should not be a meager amount also. It is true that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim nor it can be a bonanza but it should not be a meager amount also. The learned Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which appears to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In case, the loss of future prospects is taken into consideration on the basis of 42.90% permanent disability in the light of age and income of the appellant, then the amount of Rs.40,000/-appears to be a meager amount and cannot be said to be an adequate compensation. In these circumstances, in my view, the ends of justice would be met in case the said amount of Rs.40,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- as lump sum amount of compensation instead of adopting the multiplier system 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award of the learned Tribunal is modified. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,86,000/-. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application upto the date of payment. No order as to costs.