Judgment J.K.Maheshwari, J. ( 1. ) This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 1/10/2007 passed by learned M.A.C.T., Indore in claim case No. 155/2007. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,27,000 with interest @ 6% per annum for the injuries sustained, arising out of the accident occurred on 23 rd February, 2004. ( 2. ) Appellant had preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,25,000. She had received injuries i.e., fracture of left femur, subtrochanteric fracture and fracture of shaft right femur and crush in abdomen. ( 3. ) The Tribunal has awarded the total sum of Rs. 1,27,000. The certificate of permanent disablement (Ext. P-32) is available on record. The Tribunal found it, a case of permanent disability to the extent of 45% due to fracture of femur bone left leg and shaft of femur in right leg. However, Rs. 60,000 in the head of future loss of earning and pain and suffering has been awarded while Rs. 50,000 towards medical bills and Rs. 17,000 in the head of conveyance, attendant special diet has been allowed making it total compensation of Rs. 1,27,000. Mr. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case in which hale and healthy girl aged 19 years had suffered with a fracture of right leg as well as left leg having disablement to the extent of 45% which resulted into loss of future earning as well as marriage prospects in life. Certain photographs showing the marks over the body on account of those injuries have been produced. It is contended that the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation on the head of pain and suffering in addition to the compensation of future loss of earning, more so, looking to the shortening she may suffer marriage prospects and cannot live her life healthy and with amenities, therefore, some amount ought to have been granted in those heads. It is also stated that in loss of wages during treatment no amount has been allowed. Though there was a long hospitalization in various hospitals, therefore, some amount may be allowed in said head. It is also stated that in loss of wages during treatment no amount has been allowed. Though there was a long hospitalization in various hospitals, therefore, some amount may be allowed in said head. In view of the said it is urged that the appeal filed by the appellant may be allowed directing enhancement of the compensation. ( 4. ) On the other hand Mr. P.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company has contended in support of the findings of the Claims Tribunal and argued that the compensation as awarded by the impugned award is just and proper, which do not warrant any interference by this Court. ( 5. ) After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it is seen from the record that Dr. Sandeep Agrawal submitted certificate of the permanent disability to the extent of 45%. In his statement in the Court it is not opined by him that such disablement shall be to what extent in ratio to the whole body. Thus in such a circumstances, the disablement for the whole body on account of injuries re ceived to the insured, may safely be accepted to 25% looking to the injury and the facts of this case. It is not disputed that on the date of the accident the injured was a student. However, the calculation of compensation may be made according to the notional earning of Rs. 15,000 per annum whereby the future loss of earning comes to Rs. 3750.00 per annum commensurate to disability. As per the age i.e., 19 years, if multiplier of 16 is applied, then total sum of future loss of earning comes to Rs. 60,000. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the injuries, Rs. 25,000 further may be allowed in the head of pain and suffering to the injured during treatment as well as for whole life. The shortening of leg has been disbelieved by the Tribunal because the measurement of both the legs has not been mentioned by the Doctor in his certificate but the injured who is present in the Court apparently having the shortening of leg. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal on the said point is hereby set aside. The shortening of leg has been disbelieved by the Tribunal because the measurement of both the legs has not been mentioned by the Doctor in his certificate but the injured who is present in the Court apparently having the shortening of leg. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal on the said point is hereby set aside. By all these injuries and due to the shortening of leg, she may suffer with marriage prospects, thus, in the opinion of this Court, in the shortening of leg and for future marriage prospects, Rs. 1,00,000 may be allowed which shall be sufficient in those heads. In other heads, i.e., loss of wages Rs. 15,000 is further awarded, in addition to the amount awarded in the head of special diet, conveyance, etc. Thus, in addition to the compensation already granted by the Tribunal, enhancement of Rs. 1,35,000 is being directed in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 6. ) Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced to the sum of Rs. 1,35,000 in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.