JUDGMENT Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal under section of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 23.4.2008, passed by Second Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Jaora (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 195 of 2006. 2. The appellant had suffered injuries in the motor accident, which had taken place on 9.4.2006. Accordingly he had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that in the accident appellant had suffered permanent disability in reference to the whole body to the extent of 40 per cent. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 2,100 and found the age of the appellant as 35 years and applied the multiplier of 16. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,61,280 under the head of loss of income due to permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded the following amount under the different heads: (1)Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs. 1,61,280 (2) Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000 (3) Actual medical expenses Rs. 28,350 (4) Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000 (5) Attendant charges Rs. 5,000 (6) Transportation Rs. 7,000 (7) Special diet Rs. 5,000 Total Rs. 2,31,630 (rounded off to Rs. 2,31,650) The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of application till realization on the aforesaid amount. 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 the issue of liability as to who is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has already recorded the findings on these issues in favour of the appellant. None of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the respondents i.e., owner/driver/insurance company by filing cross-appeal or cross-objection. Thus it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on the said issues. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the compensation amount and the amount deserves to be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submitted that the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for interference. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submitted that the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for interference. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The record indicates that appellant had suffered injuries in tibia and fibula bones of the left leg and he was treated in the hospital at Jaora, Ahmedabad, Ujjain and Udaipur. Dr. S.K. Varun, AW 4, has stated that due to the injuries received in the accident the appellant had suffered deformity in the left leg. During treatment external fixator was used and there was pus formation in chronocosto moraisis bone. Due to injury the left leg had twisted forward and the fracture was not properly united. He also stated that the appellant had suffered osteoporosis in the bones and enkyonosis in the ankle joint. The doctor opined that the appellant had suffered 90 per cent permanent disability in the left leg. According to the doctor the appellant can walk with the help of walker and to repair the fracture, rod was inserted and bone grafting operation was also done. Though the doctor has stated that when there is 90 per cent permanent disability in the leg, it comes to 40 per cent in reference to the whole body, but that statement of the doctor is general statement, which has been made without taking into consideration nature of work of the appellant and his age and other relevant considerations. The Tribunal has found that the appellant at the time of accident was doing the work of agriculturist and labourer, therefore, keeping in view the nature of work of the appellant and the extent of permanent disability, which he has suffered in the left leg, the permanent disability calculated by the Tribunal in reference to the whole body is not proper and keeping in view the entire circumstances on record, it is found that the appellant had suffered at least 60 per cent permanent disability in reference to the whole body. 8. So far as the income of the appellant is concerned, the accident is of the year 2006. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant was working as agriculturist and labourer, therefore, amount of Rs. 2,100 per month calculated by the Tribunal is not adequate. 8. So far as the income of the appellant is concerned, the accident is of the year 2006. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant was working as agriculturist and labourer, therefore, amount of Rs. 2,100 per month calculated by the Tribunal is not adequate. Though the appellant has stated before the Tribunal that he was earning Rs. 150 per day, but no evidence has been adduced in support of this, therefore, it is safe to assess notional income of appellant as Rs. 2,500 per month, which comes to Rs. 30,000 per annum. Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the appellant and rightly applied the multiplier of 16, therefore, the loss of income due to permanent disability comes to Rs. 30,000 x 60 per cent x 16 = Rs. 2,88,000, whereas the Claims Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,61,280 under this head. Thus the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal under this head is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 1,26,720. It is also noticed that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of income during the treatment period. The appellant has remained under treatment for considerable period of time, therefore, a sum of Rs. 12,000 is awarded under this head. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 1,38,720, which will bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of application till realization. 9. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs.