Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimant injured, Kumari Asha against the award dated 19/2/2004, whereby, deciding her motor accident claim petition no. 307/2001 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,81,000/- in favour of the claimant. The present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of said compensation. 3. In an accident which took place on 1/5/2001 when the family members comprising of Futermal, Smt. Chandra Chopra, Smt. Leela Devi, Keshrimal, present appellant - Kumari Asha and Smt. Meena were going to Mumbai in car No. MH 04/AS/2686 & at around 6.15 am, the tyre of the car burst and on account of said accident, the vehicle turned turtle three times over and four passengers, namely; Futermal, Smt. Chandra Chopra, Smt. Leela Devi and Keshrimal died, whereas, present appellant Kumari Asha and Meena suffered injuries. 4. The nature of injuries suffered by the present appellant, aged 20 years at the time of accident, are given in permanent disability certificate Ex. 234 dated 21/3/2003. The injured suffered severe backbone injuries & she was treated at Hinduja Hospital, Bombay. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that despite two disability certificates produced before the learned Tribunal, Ex. 199 showing 40% disability and Ex.234 showing 30% disability, no compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head `Loss of Income', whereas, said injured appellant had done B.Com and was intending to do C.A. Course and had she not suffered these injuries, she would have been earning at least Rs. 6000-7000/-per month in a family business of medical shop at Bombay. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anil Bhandari, also relied upon a recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and Anr. vs. National Insurance Co. and Ors. -2010(3) WLN 44 (SC) = 2010(2) CCR 1351 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for a household lady also some monetary value for her household work can be assumed. 7. From the impugned award, it appears that even though compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,81,000/- has been awarded & besides other heads, Rs.80,000/- towards medical reimbursement, Rs. 1 lac for mental agony, Rs. 40,000/- for future medical treatment, Rs. 7. From the impugned award, it appears that even though compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,81,000/- has been awarded & besides other heads, Rs.80,000/- towards medical reimbursement, Rs. 1 lac for mental agony, Rs. 40,000/- for future medical treatment, Rs. 20,000/- for transportation has been awarded, but no amount of compensation has been awarded under the head `loss of income', which the injured appellant could have earned had she not suffered such serious injuries. Therefore, assuming the monthly income of Rs.6000/- and applying the factor of 18 as per II Schedule, looking to the age of the appellant, her qualifications and possibility of increase in her income and the extent of disability of 30% suffered by her, additional compensation of Rs. 3,88,800/-(6000x12x18x30/100=3,88,800) deserves to be awarded in favour of claimant. Since considerable time has passed by now from the date of accident and passing of the impugned award dated 19/2/2004, it is made clear that additional compensation will not carry any interest if the compensation is paid by the Insurance Company within three months from today. If the same is not paid within three months, the additional amount of compensation will bear interest at the rate of 9% p.a. thereafter till such compensation is paid by the Insurance Company. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 19/2/2004 in respect of present appellant is increased by a sum of Rs. 3,88,800/- under the head `loss of income'. No order as to costs.