JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hakim for appellant original claimant. 2. By filing this appeal, appellant original claimant has challenged award made by MACT (Main) Vadodara in MACP No. 699 of 1988 Exh. 46 decided on 1.11.92. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 75800.00 in favour of claimant with 12 per cent interest from date of claim petition. In this appeal, appellant is praying for enhancement thereof. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Hakim for appellant submitted that looking to nature of injury caused to appellant, amount of compensation which has been awarded by claims tribunal is on its lower side. He submitted that in accident, appellant has received injury on right eye and other parts of body and she has lost total vision of right eye which has been considered to be 50 per cent disability by claims tribunal as per medical certificate given by Dr. Kadam at Exh. 43. Learned Advocate Mr. Hakim for appellant submitted that claims tribunal has not properly appreciated that lady claimant having young age of 23 years at the time of accident when accident occurred and she was unmarried at that time which ought to have been taken into consideration by claims tribunal while awarding compensation in favour of claimant. He submitted that her marriage prospects has been adversely affected and appellant has suffered disfigurement and also disability which has to be suffered by appellant till end of her life and it may happen that because of injury received on right eye, it may also adversely affect left eye in future. So, these are the circumstances which ought to have been kept in mind by claims tribunal at the time of working out compensation which has lost sight by claims tribunal and, therefore, amount of Rs. 75,800.00 awarded by claims tribunal is not just, reasonable, adequate and proper and, therefore, interference of this Court is necessary. He submitted that claimants are claiming Rs. 1,20,000.00 by way of this appeal. 4. Learned Advocate Ms. Hina Desai appearing for respondent insurance has raised contention that claims tribunal has properly dealt with matter and has rightly awarded amount of compensation for which claimant is entitled and claims tribunal has not committed any error which would require interference of this court. 1,20,000.00 by way of this appeal. 4. Learned Advocate Ms. Hina Desai appearing for respondent insurance has raised contention that claims tribunal has properly dealt with matter and has rightly awarded amount of compensation for which claimant is entitled and claims tribunal has not committed any error which would require interference of this court. She submitted that while awarding compensation, claims tribunal has considered marriage prospects as well as disfigurement and, therefore, no enhancement can be made by this court. 5. Considered submissions made by both learned Advocates also perused impugned award passed by claims tribunal. It is necessary to note that at the time when accident occurred, as per Exh. 36 which is the certificate of passing of SSLC and Exh. 37, certificate, appellant claimant was taking training and completed course of nursing, midwifery, pharmacy, First Aid at Christian Fellowship Medical Training Center at Kerala. Claims tribunal has considered Exh. 38, service certificate, Exh. 39, certificate which was showing that she is serving. Claims tribunal also considered Exh. 40 prescription of Dr. Nagpal of Ahmedabad. Appellant claimant Moni Daniel Krishian was examined at Exh. 41. This was the evidence in all adduced and produced by the parties in case. In para 9 and 10 of award, claims tribunal considered question of quantum of compensation. Therefore, para 9 and 10 of award are reproduced as under: 9. The next question that arises for consideration, as to what compensation the applicant is entitled to get. The applicant has claimed compensation of Rs. Two lacs. This being an injury petition, the applicant is entitled to pecuniary and non pecuniary loss. Pecuniary loss is actual medical and other expenses incurred by applicant. In this case, the applicant says that she has incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 5000.00 on ac of medicines, nutrition food and transportation charges. When asked in cross examination, she had to admit that she has no evidence to show that she had spent Rs. 5000.00.But taking into ac the nature of injury on right eye and other parts of body, it would be just and proper to award at least Rs. 3000.00 on ac of medicine, nutrition and transport charges. 10. Then, on ac of present economic loss, the applicant has produced the earning certificate of Rs. 550.00 per month. 5000.00.But taking into ac the nature of injury on right eye and other parts of body, it would be just and proper to award at least Rs. 3000.00 on ac of medicine, nutrition and transport charges. 10. Then, on ac of present economic loss, the applicant has produced the earning certificate of Rs. 550.00 per month. She could not work for six months and, therefore, it would be just and proper to award Rs. 3300.00 on ac of present economic loss.Then, on ac of future economic loss, from the certificate of Dr. Kadam at Exh. 43, it is revealed that applicant has lost her right eye vision. Therefore, it would be just and proper to award Rs. 3300.00 n ac of present economic loss, from the certificate of Dr. Kadam at Exh. 43, it is revealed that she had lost her right eye vision. Therefore, 50% disability has to be awarded to the applicant. She was earning Rs. 550.00 per month at the time of accident and monthly loss comes to Rs. 275/- per month at the time of accident and monthly loss come to Rs. 275.00 per month. This is multiplied by 12, would come to Rs. 3300.00 per year which will be the datum figure. She was aged 23 years and taking into ac the age of the applicant and other factors of uncertainty and improbabilities of life, it would be just and proper to apply 15 years purchase factor to the facts of the present case.Hence Rs. 3300/- multiplied by 15 would come to Rs. 49500.00, that will be the amount awardable to applicant on ac of future economic loss. The applicant is further awarded Rs. 20,000.00 on ac of non pecuniary loss, particularly for loss of prospects for marriage and pain shock and suffering and social discomfort. Therefore, in all, the applicant is awarded total amount of Rs. 75,800.00. The applicant is a young literate lady and she knows her interest best and therefore no order regarding investment is made. Hence the following order is passed: 6. Thus, considering observations made by claims tribunal while examining question of quantum, it appears that claims Tribunal has considered pecuniary and non pecuniary loss caused to claimant. Claims Tribunal awarded amount of compensation as aforesaid on different heads. Considering certificate issued by Dr. Kadam at Exh. Hence the following order is passed: 6. Thus, considering observations made by claims tribunal while examining question of quantum, it appears that claims Tribunal has considered pecuniary and non pecuniary loss caused to claimant. Claims Tribunal awarded amount of compensation as aforesaid on different heads. Considering certificate issued by Dr. Kadam at Exh. 43, claims tribunal considered that she had lost her right eye vision, therefore, 50 per cent disability has to be a warded to claimant. Considering her earning of Rs. 550.00 p.m. at the time of accident, deducting 50 per cent as per certificate issued by Dr. Kadam, claims tribunal held that such monthly economic loss would come to Rs. 275.00 per month and multiplying it by 12, held that annual economic loss would come to Rs. 3300.00 and applying multiplier of 15, held that loss of future income would come to Rs. 49500.00. Then, claims tribunal added Rs. 20,000.00 on ac of non pecuniary loss particularly for loss of prospects for marriage and pain shock and suffering and social discomfort and awarded an amount of Rs. 75,800 in all to claimant. 7. Recently, in Sapna v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And another, 2008 ACJ 2148 , apex court considered quantum, injury on leg, compound fracture of left knee, dislocation of patella bone, skin and muscles above and below came out and veins got cut, bones of left leg became bare due to tearing of skin and flesh. In that case, girl aged 12 years suffered 90 per cent permanent disablement in left leg and she has become crippled and completely disabled to walk. Apex court observed as under in para 8 and 9 of said decision: 8. The principles governing a claim petition for assessing the damages in case of bodily injury suffered is that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal should consider all relevant factors so as to enable the insured to be put in the same position as if he had not sustained any injury. The principle of Restitutio-in-integrum may be applied in a case of nature. Pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss are required to be pressed under certain heads. So far as the pecuniary loss is concerned, the same can be ascertained. The principle of Restitutio-in-integrum may be applied in a case of nature. Pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss are required to be pressed under certain heads. So far as the pecuniary loss is concerned, the same can be ascertained. What is required to be done is a balancing act by awarding such sum which, on the one hand, shall take care of the loss suffered by the claimant for the present time and future pecuniary benefits and, on the other, pecuniary advantages which from whatever source comes to them by reason of such injuries. So far as non-pecuniary loss is concerned, the same has to be assessed broadly under certain heads, namely, damages for physical pain, mental suffering etc. besides the amount spent on medical treatment, if any. 9. Expenditure for medical treatment has been granted. The High Court, in its judgment, noticed that although the Tribunal had referred to the likely effect on the matrimonial prospects of the appellant on ac of permanent disability, due regard in that behalf had not been given. The High Court opined : "Considering the age of the claimant Km. Sapna at the time of the accident; the nature of the injuries and the fractures suffered by her in the accident; the extent of permanent disability suffered by her in left leg on ac of the injuries sustained in the accident; the amount of physical pain and mental suffering she must have suffered during the period she remained hospitalised and her left leg was under plaster; the fact that the permanent disability to the extent of 90% in her left leg is bound to affect adversely her matrimonial prospects and that for rest of her life she would remain crippled and in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the above quoted dicta, we are of the opinion that a lump sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) would be just and proper compensation to the claimant for the injuries suffered by her in the accident, the amount spent on treatment, physical pain and mental suffering, loss of future earning capacity and other permissible heads. See: Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Niranjan Ambalal Patel & Others, reported in 1982 (2) GLR 180 . 8. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) would be just and proper compensation to the claimant for the injuries suffered by her in the accident, the amount spent on treatment, physical pain and mental suffering, loss of future earning capacity and other permissible heads. See: Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Niranjan Ambalal Patel & Others, reported in 1982 (2) GLR 180 . 8. Therefore, from perusal of observations made by claims tribunal in para 9 and 10, it appears that claims tribunal has not considered prospective income while determining loss of future income of applicant, therefore, if such monthly income of Rs.550.00 as considered by claims tribunal is multiplied by 3, then, figure of Rs.1650.00 would come and by dividing Rs.1650.00 by 2, figure of Rs.825.00 per month would come as monthly prospective income of claimant and if 50 per cent is deducted therefrom considering certificate issued by Dr. Kadam at Exh. 43 as considered by claims tribunal, then an amount of Rs.413.00 per month would come under head of future economic loss. Therefore, annual figure on that would come to Rs. 4956.00. Looking to age of claimant at the time of accident, 23 years, multiplier of 15 applied by claims tribunal is unjust and not proper and in facts of this case, multiplier of 17 is required to be applied and applying multiplier of 17, figure under the head of loss of future income would come to Rs.84,252.00 (Rs.413 x 12 x 17=84252/-). Claims tribunal has awarded Rs.49500.00 on that head. Therefore, deducting Rs.49,500.00, amount of additional compensation on that head would come to Rs.34,692.00. 9. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000.00 towards non pecuniary loss particularly for loss of prospects for marriage and pain, shock and suffering and social discomfort. According to my opinion, 40,000.00 (Rs. 25000.00 towards pain, shock and suffering and social discomfort and Rs. 15000.00 for loss of marriage prospects) is required to be awarded to claimant. Then, total amount of additional compensation on aforesaid heads would come Rs.74,692.00 to which claimants are entitled as an additional compensation over and above compensation awarded by claims tribunal. According to my opinion, amount which has been awarded by claims tribunal is found to be on lower side, unreasonable, unjust and inadequate and same is required be enhanced to extent indicated herein above. At this stage, learned Advocate Ms. According to my opinion, amount which has been awarded by claims tribunal is found to be on lower side, unreasonable, unjust and inadequate and same is required be enhanced to extent indicated herein above. At this stage, learned Advocate Ms. Hina Desai appearing for respondent insurance raised contention that in case if amount of compensation is enhanced by this court, then, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum may not be given from date of claim petition on such amount but it may be given from future date. considered her submission and also considered submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Hakim. Appeal has been decided by this court after period of more than sixteen years and it remained pending before this court for such a long period. Therefore, considering submissions made by learned Advocate Ms.Hina Desai, considering date of accident and date of award made by claims tribunal, 12 per cent interest is to be paid by insurance on enhanced amount as referred to above with effect from 1st January, 1992 till date of realization. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Appellant claimant is entitled for Rs. Rs. 74,692/- over and above amount awarded by claims tribunal, with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1st January, 1992 till realization. It is directed to respondent United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to deposit said amount of compensation awarded by this court before claims tribunal with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1st January, 1992 till date of realization, within two months from the date of receiving copy of this order. After realising said amount from respondent no.2 insurance, it is directed to claims tribunal Baroda to pay entire amount by way of an ac payee cheque drawn in favour of present appellant Moni Deniel after proper verification. Accordingly, award made by claims tribunal, Baroda in this case stands modified to extent indicated herein above with no order as to costs. 11. It is necessary to note that respondent NO.1 Anil Raj, owner and driver of motor cycle has not received notice issued by this court in this appeal but subsequently facts are gathered by appellant's advocate that respondent no.1 owner Anil Raj has been murdered and, therefore, notice was sent to care of address of Dr. 11. It is necessary to note that respondent NO.1 Anil Raj, owner and driver of motor cycle has not received notice issued by this court in this appeal but subsequently facts are gathered by appellant's advocate that respondent no.1 owner Anil Raj has been murdered and, therefore, notice was sent to care of address of Dr. Usha Raj but because owner has not been served, liability of insurance remains as award passed by claims tribunal has been fully implemented by respondent no.2. Even in case owner not receiving notice in this appeal, then also, in view of judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2004 ACJ 2112 , respondent no.2 insurance is liable to pay amount of enhanced compensation with 12 per cvent interest with effect from 1.12.1992 to present appellant. Appeal Partly allowed.