RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation that was awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 22.5.2006 by which a total sum of Rs.2,15,235/- has been awarded as compensation, which includes a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- for the permanent disability of 70% sustained by the appellant. Appellant met with an accident involving the vehicle insured with the insurance company leading to rupture of his right leg. The disability certificate that has been produced on record vide Exh.10A indicates proof of his permanent disability to the extent of 70%. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in granting less amount of compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- on lump sum basis towards the permanent disability of 70%. Tribunal has further erred in law in not granting reasonable amount towards medical expenditure, which is only Rs.235/-. It is argued that salary of the appellant at the time of accident was Rs.5,000/- per month, which fact is proved by the statement of AW-2 Gopal Lal shop owner, who had employed the appellant as a sales person. It was argued that appellant had to be subjected to surgery leading to enormous expenditure. Compensation should have been awarded by applying the multiplier according to the formula prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and argued that merely because right leg of the appellant has been imputed leading 70% disability, it does not mean that he has been totally rendered incapable of working capacity as a sales person. It is on that criteria that the Tribunal has awarded lump sum amount of Rs.1,75,000/- because he is continuously working as a sales person in the capacity to earn his livelihood. It is argued that award of Rs.235/- towards medical expenses was justified because only that much was proved by the appellant. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded as compensation cannot by any stretch of imagination can be said to be justified in a case where claimant has sustained disability to the extent of 70% inasmuch as, his right leg has been imputed. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded as compensation cannot by any stretch of imagination can be said to be justified in a case where claimant has sustained disability to the extent of 70% inasmuch as, his right leg has been imputed. In a cited case of B. Kothandapani vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. : 2011 R.A.R. 161 (SC) = 2011(1) CCR 444 (SC) = 2011(2) RLW 1826 (SC), in permanent disability of 5%, Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/-, granted Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of earning capacity and Rs.50,000/- was additionally awarded. High Court set-aside the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on the head of permanent disability holding that Tribunal grated sufficient amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of earning capacity. Supreme Court restored the award of the Tribunal and set-aside the judgment of the High Court. 5. In Sri Nagarajappa vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. : 2011 R.A.R. 165 (SC) = 2011(1) CCR 524 (SC) = 2011(2) RLW 1490 (SC), the claimant was a manual worker, who sustained 20% disability. High Court held that disability is actually to 68% in place of 20% since claimant was unable to perform effectively the manual work without the help of both the hands. 6. In other judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in Grifan vs. Sarbjeet Singh and others : 2000(3) T.A.C. 203 (SC), for the disability of 80%, the Apex Court enhanced compensation by Rs.2,00,000/- more in addition to Rs.2,00,000/- already ordered by the High Court. 7. Upon considering the arguments in the light of the aforesaid judgments cited in this case, I find that even if income of the appellant is not accepted as Rs.5,000/- and assuming only Rs.3,000/- per month and after applying the multiplier formula, loss of income would come to Rs.2,100/- per month : 2100 x 12, the yearly assessed income of the appellant comes to Rs.25,200/-. At the relevant time, age of the appellant was 35 years, therefore, multiplier of 17 should be the appropriate multiplier. Computing thus : 25200 x 17, the amount comes to Rs.4,28,400/-. The award of Rs.235/- towards medical expenditure even in the absence of medical bills, cannot be justified. Thus, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is payable under the head of medical expenditure. Computing thus : 25200 x 17, the amount comes to Rs.4,28,400/-. The award of Rs.235/- towards medical expenditure even in the absence of medical bills, cannot be justified. Thus, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is payable under the head of medical expenditure. Similarly, Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and suffering. However, award under all other non-pecuniary heads i.e. Rs.20,000/- towards transportation charges & nutritious diet, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earning capacity and Rs.1,75,000/- towards permanent disability and suffering of mental and physical agony is maintained. Thus, totalling 428400 + 5000 + 10000 + 20000 + 20000 + 175000, the amount comes to Rs.6,58,400/- and after minicing the amount of Rs.25,000/-, which the appellant received towards 'no fault liability' as well as the total award amount of Rs.2,15,235/- i.e. total sum of Rs.2,40,235/-, the enhanced amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,18,165/- (658400 – 240235 = 418165). The award of Rs.2,15,235/- is thus enhanced to Rs.6,58,400/-. The appellant is entitled to receive interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount of Rs.4,18,165/- from the date of filing of the claim petition. 8. The appeal is thus allowed. The record be remitted back to the Tribunal forthwith, if any.