JUDGMENT P.K. Jaiswal, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 11th February, 2008 passed by learned III Additional Member M.A.C.T., Indore in claim case No. 141/ 2007 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,73,000/- as compensation with interest @ 9% from the date of application till its realisation to the claimant. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention to Paragraph 34 of the impugned award and submitted that on the basis of bed-head ticket, discharge card and other documents the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,68,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 55,000/- towards conveyance, special diet etc-etc. He very fairly conceded that the amount awarded under these heads is just and proper. He also drew my attention to Paragraph 36 of the impugned award and submitted that due to the accident the appellant sustained multiplier fracture of tibia fibula bone and other injuries and as per Ext-P/30, permanent disability certificate issued by Dr. Ashutosh Verma (AW. 5) the appellant has suffered 68% permanent disability. He submitted that the disability of the total body of the appellant is to the extent of 30%. He further submitted that at the time of accident appellant was a final year student of B.Com. and he was also having six months course of Computer Diploma and looking to his education and other qualifications, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- is on the lower side. It is submitted that after completion of B.Com. the appellant would have got a job of Accountant equivalent to the said post and his minimum income would be arrived at Rs. 45,000/- per annum. 3. In support of the said contention learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (1) M.PLJ. 566 : 2010 (4) T.A.C. 385 and submitted that in that case appellant Arvind Kumar Mishra was a student of Engineering Final Year at Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra (B.I.T.) and suffered serious injuries. The Hon'ble Apex Court under the head of loss of future earnings awarded a sum of Rs. 7,56,000/- and in the head of treatment including the medical expenses awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Hon'ble Apex Court under the head of loss of future earnings awarded a sum of Rs. 7,56,000/- and in the head of treatment including the medical expenses awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra) the appellant was a student of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) and was prosecuting his studies from the prestigious institute like B.I.T. and, therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court held that after completion of B.E., he would have got a good job. 4. Here in the present case, the appellant was a final year student of B.Com and, therefore, it can be very fairly held that after passing of B.Com. he would have got a job of Accountant at the salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Looking to the injuries sustained by him the loss of earning is to the extent of 30% i.e. Rs. 10,800/- per annum. Looking to the age of the appellant the multiplier of 18 would be applicable. On applying the multiplier of 18 the amount of loss of earning comes to Rs. 1,94,400/- (10,800 x 18 =1,94,400/-). On other heads like loss of marriage prospects, loss of amenities of life, loss of pain and suffering etc the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,05,600/-. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-. After deducting a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the enhanced amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,50,000/-. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that after receipt of memo of appeal the Insurance Company has filed the cross-objection on 6th January, 2009 and submitted that at the time of accident the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. M.P. 09-W-6877 was not involved in the accident. In the support of the said contention he drew my attention to the statement of Benjamin Franklin (N.A.W. 1), Daniel Franklin (N.A.W. 2) and Ajay Singh Kushwaha (NA.W. 3) and submitted that as per their statements on 24th December, 2003, owner Benjamin Franklin (N.A.W. 1), due to Christmas eve had gone to meet his parents at Mhow. He further in his statement has deposed that he had never kept any driver for his vehicle and he never knew a person named Pradeep Agrawal nor he had kept him as his driver. He further in his statement has deposed that he had never kept any driver for his vehicle and he never knew a person named Pradeep Agrawal nor he had kept him as his driver. He also stated that the said Maruti car was purchased by him under the exchange scheme from Jabalpur Motors, Indore. This witness in his cross-examination very fairly admitted that no such defence was taken in the written statement which was filed immediately after receipt of the claim petition nor he has stated in the said written statement that on 24th December, 2003 he had gone to Mhow to meet his parents. 6. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the statement of Benjamin Franklin (NAW 1), Daniel Franklin (NAW 2) and Ajay Singh Kushwaha (NAW. 3) and held that Maruti Car bearing No. M.P. 09-W-6877 was involved in the accident. This vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the insurer is liable to indemnify the liability of the insured. 7. For the above mentioned reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation is further enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal from the date of claim petition till its realisation. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.