JUDGMENT Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal under Section of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 31st July, 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.) Indoor, in Claim Case No. 207/2003. 2. The Appellant on 13th February, 2003 was travelling in Maruti Van bearing registration No. M.P. 09 H.C. 8310, when the accident was caused by truck bearing registration No. M.P. 09 D 7640, which was coming from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner. In the accident the Appellant had received serious injuries, therefore, he had filed the claim case No. 207/2003, before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned award found that in the accident the Appellant had received grievous injuries and permanent disability was also caused to him. The Tribunal instead of calculating the loss of earning due to the permanent disability by taking into account the relevant factors, granted a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on account of the permanent disability suffered by him. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for treatment, expenses, special diet etc. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application. 3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the Appellant and none of those findings have been challenged at the instance of the Respondents, i.e., owner/ driver/Insurance Company by filing cross appeal or cross objection. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on those issues. 4. learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the lump-sum amount without taking into account the relevant factors for calculating the compensation. He submitted that the amount, which has been awarded by the Tribunal is much on the lower side. 5. learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Insurance Company supporting the award submitted that the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for interference by this Court is required, 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 5. learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Insurance Company supporting the award submitted that the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for interference by this Court is required, 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The record indicates that the Appellant had received several injuries of grievous nature in the accident and he had suffered the permanent disability on account of those injuries. The Appellant has stated that his 3rd, 4th, and 5th left rib bones were fractured, there was fracture in right mandible, there was comminuted fracture in humerus bone and elbow of the right hand. There was comminuted fracture in the femur bone of the left leg. There were also comminuted fracture in tibia fibula of the left leg, in the femur bone of the right leg and fracture on the knee of the right leg. He had also received multiple fracture on the face. He remained admitted in the hospital for long time. He has stated that due to the injuries, he found it difficult to sit on the floor and perform his daily activities. Dr. S.N. Goyal had, given the permanent disability certificate Ext. P/60. According to him, there was restriction in the movement of right elbow and right knee. There was disability in movement of his right knee by 16%, left hip and leg by 20%, right hip by 15% and leg by 13%. Dr. Satyanarayan AW-1, who had treated the Appellant and performed several operations has stated that the fracture of left hip and femur bone of thigh was fixed by putting rod and screw. Similarly, the fracture of femur bone of right leg was fixed by putting rod and screw. Tibia bone of right leg was fixed by rod and humerus of right hand was fixed by plate and fracture of elbow was fixed by wire. The multiple fracture and injuries received on the face were fixed by wire. Doctor opined that the Appellant had suffered permanent disability of 16% on the right elbow, 20% on left hip and leg, 15% on right hip and 13% on the leg. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement, the Tribunal had rightly found that the Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 64%. 8. The age of the Appellant has been found to be 20 years. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement, the Tribunal had rightly found that the Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 64%. 8. The age of the Appellant has been found to be 20 years. The Appellant was student of Engineering at the time of the accident with brilliant academic record. The evidence indicates that he had cleared GRE before the accident and was offered admission in CASE Western Reserve University (Exhibit P/76), Ohio, and Cleveland State University, Ohio (Exhibit P/80), but due to the accident his admission was delayed. Due to the accident he could not appear in the final semester examination in time and his completion of course was also delayed. The Appellant at the time of accident was also working as Insurance Agent and he has filed his income tax return for the period of 1st April, 1999 to 31st March, 2000, Exhibit P/ 88, showing his income from insurance business as Rs. 23,649/-. For the year 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. Exhibit P/90 -C, showing his income Rs. 55,269/-. For the period 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002 Exhibit P/92-C, showing his income Rs. 72,042/- and for the period 1st April, 2002 to 31st March, 2003 Exhibit P/94 -C, showing his income as Rs. 67,750 /-. Looking to the academic record of the Appellant his future prospects and the fact that even while studying, he could manage to earn the income as reflected in the returns, it is safe to presume the income of the Appellant as Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. 9. So far as the age of the Appellant is concerned, the documents Exhibit P/90 to P/94-C shows that his date of birth is 8th August, 1980, therefore, on the date of accident, he was aged about 23 years of age and in terms of the judgment of the Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 A.C.J. 1298:2009 (2) T.A.C. 677, the applicable multiplier in the age group of 20-25 years is 17. 10. Since the Appellant has suffered the disability of 64% in reference to the different limbs of the body, therefore, the disability suffered in reference to the whole body comes to 32%. Thus, the Appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 /- X 32% = 32,000 x 17 = 5,44,000/-. 11. 10. Since the Appellant has suffered the disability of 64% in reference to the different limbs of the body, therefore, the disability suffered in reference to the whole body comes to 32%. Thus, the Appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 /- X 32% = 32,000 x 17 = 5,44,000/-. 11. It is worth noting that the Tribunal has not awarded the actual medical expenses on the basis of the bill of actual medical expenses produced by the Appellant, but the Tribunal has award a lump-sum amount under this head. The approach of the Tribunal in this regard is not correct. The Appellant has produced the bills of actual medical expenses from Exhibit P/96 to Exhibit P/212, the total of which comes to Rs. 2,62,575.30. The Appellant had received the medi-claim of Rs. 35,000/- from National 'Insurance Company, therefore, after deducting this amount the amount receivable under the head of actual medical expenses comes to Rs. 2,27,575.30/- which the Appellant is entitled to receive. 12. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum under the head of physical and mental pain and suffering, special diet, transportation charges etc. Looking to the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, it is found that the Appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs 25,000/- under the head of physical and mental pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- under the head of special diet and transportation charges. The Appellant is further entitled to sum of Rs. 15,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life. 13. Thus, the Appellant is entitled to the compensation under the different heads as follows: For loss of income due to the permanent disability Rs. 5,44,000/- For actual medical expenses Rs. 2,27,575/- For Physical and mental pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- For special diet and transportation charges Rs. 10,000/- For loss of amenities of life Rs. 15,000/- Total sum Rs. 8,21,575/- 14. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 /-, therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced by sum of (Total sum of Rs. 8,21,575/-. Tribunal award Rs. 2,25,000) = Rs. 5,96,575/ -, which will bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. 15. The appeal is accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.