JUDGMENT VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. - This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him vide award dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, "the Tribunal"), in a sum of ` 4,42,600/-for his injuries suffered in a road side accident that took place on 13.7.2009. The case of Deepak, claimant, is as under: 2. On 13.7.2009 at about 1.00 p.m., Deepak with his friend Satish was going on a motorcycle to Kuldeep Nagar from his house. He was driving the motorcycle while Satish was riding its pillion. After getting petrol from the petrol pump, they were on Shastri turning on G.T. road. When he was in the process of taking turn towards Kuldeep Nagar and had almost completed the turn, a Verna car bearing registration No. PB-18D-0014, driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Ambala Bus Stand. It was driven by Jitender Kumar, respondent no.1. It had hit the motorcycle driven by Deepak Kumar. As a result of this accident, the motorcycle had struck against a cart parked on the left side of the road. Deepak Kumar and his companion fell down on the road and suffered serious injuries. They were taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala, wherefrom Deepak was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Deepak Kumar has claimed his income at Rs.3,300/-per month and has claimed Rs. 1.25 lacs to have been spent in his treatment. He has also claimed to have suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. He has claimed Rs.15,00,000/-as compensation. 3. The respondents have resisted the claim petition. The driver and owner, respondents No.1 and 2, have filed a joint written statement and have taken a number of preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition etc. They have denied the very accident as well as involvement of their vehicle in the accident. They have disclosed the name of the insurer of their vehicle, who on notice appeared through counsel and filed its written statement. It has denied the cause of action, maintainability of the petition and has taken plea of misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It has also denied the very accident to have taken place involving the vehicle in question. They have disclosed the name of the insurer of their vehicle, who on notice appeared through counsel and filed its written statement. It has denied the cause of action, maintainability of the petition and has taken plea of misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It has also denied the very accident to have taken place involving the vehicle in question. It has been pleaded that the car in question was not being driven by a person holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the car at the time of alleged accident. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following consolidated issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether the accident resulting in the injuries to the claimants Deepak Kumar and Satish Kumar was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Verna Car bearing registration No. PB-18-D-0014 by respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom the claimants are entitled to receive in both petitions? OPP 3. Whether the claim petitions are bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 4. Whether respondent No. 3 -insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation on account of preliminary objections taken in the written statement? OPR-3 5. Relief. 5. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 4,42,600/- to the claimant. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimant has brought this appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Arora, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Malkeet Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Vandana Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Insurer. I have gone through the record carefully. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation for loss of future income on account of disability by applying the multiplier system. According to him, for the same, he has taken the multiplier of 14 instead of 18. According to him, the petitioner suffered the injuries at the age of 20 years and multiplier of 18 should have been adopted to work out the compensation in this regard in place of 14. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal did not take into account the price of the artificial limb, which would be required by the appellant. According to him, the petitioner suffered the injuries at the age of 20 years and multiplier of 18 should have been adopted to work out the compensation in this regard in place of 14. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal did not take into account the price of the artificial limb, which would be required by the appellant. According to him, learned Tribunal has not considered the loss of matrimonial prospects of the claimant, who has suffered the disability to the extent of 65% of left leg by way of amputation of the same. He has cited before me a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumaresh Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2011 ACJ 1975. It was a case having more or less same facts. Right leg of the claimant was amputated below knee joint. Claimant was 20 years old. He was drawing a salary of ` 6,000/-per month. The disability was assessed at 70% of right leg, which was about 35% of the whole body. His income was assessed by the appellate court at ` 3500/-per month and his loss of earning capacity at 50% and assessed compensation by adopting multiplier of 18 and enhanced the compensation to 5,48,000/-. The income of the claimant has been assessed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at ` 4,000/-per month and a sum of ` 4,32,000/-has been awarded as compensation for loss of earning capacity and a sum of ` 3,00,000/-has been awarded for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss of matrimonial prospects. A sum of ` 50,000/-has been awarded for transportation and another ` 50,000/-as compensation for pain and suffering. The award was enhanced to ` 9,97,000/-. 9. It is a case where the claimant himself claimed his income at ` 3,300/-per month. So his income can be said to have been rightly taken by the Tribunal at ` 3,000/-per month. The permanent disability is of 65% of the left leg while it was 70% of the right leg in the reported case. It has come in the evidence that the claimant had been unmarried at the time of accident and by amputation of his left leg, his matrimonial prospects would have been diminished significantly. The permanent disability is of 65% of the left leg while it was 70% of the right leg in the reported case. It has come in the evidence that the claimant had been unmarried at the time of accident and by amputation of his left leg, his matrimonial prospects would have been diminished significantly. Adopting the multiplier of 18 instead of 14, the compensation payable for loss of future income or earning capacity on account of the physical disability would come to ` 4,21,2000/-. 10. Keeping in view the difference in the facts, such as difference in disability, limb affected and the income of the claimant, I assess the compensation payable to the claimant as under:- 1. Loss of future income Rs. 4,21,200-00 2. Medical expenses Rs. 65,000-00 3. Loss of income during treatment Rs. 10,000-00 4. Medical expenses for rest of the life Rs. 70,000-00 5. Cost of artificial limb Rs. 30,000-00 6. Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life including loss of marital prospects Rs. 2,00,000-00 7. Conveyance charges Rs. 25,000-00 8. Food and nourishment Rs. 25,000-00 Total Rs. 8,46,200-00 11. In view of above, the appeal succeeds and is consequently allowed enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal from ` 4,42,600/-to ` 8,46,200/-with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same.