JUDGMENT : P.K. Jaiswal, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 12.1.2010 passed by learned Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Jaora Distt. Ratlam in Claim Case No. 34 of 2009. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 74,000 with interest to the appellant by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident that occurred on 12.11.2008. Appellant had preferred a claim petition u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,40,000. According to the appellant compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and deserves enhancement. Therefore, by filing the appeal inadequacy of the compensation has been assailed. 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable to pay compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the appellant. Those findings have not been challenged at the instance of the respondents, i.e., the owner/driver/insurance company by filing the cross-objection or cross-appeal. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on all these issues. 3. Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature. It is also submitted that on account of accident the injured sustained permanent disablement in right eye. He could not have performed any work during the treatment, and earn any amount. Counsel further submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate, without looking to the permanent disablement or the injuries sustained, hospitalisation, medical bills and the loss of earnings. Thus, compensation may be enhanced. 4. Mr. C.P. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for respondent insurance company, has relied upon the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal and further argued that the compensation awarded is just, proper and reasonable. 5. After having heard learned counsel and on going through the pleadings and evidence adduced, and on due consideration of the material available on record, hospitalisation and medical bills, etc., the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be on the lower side and deserves enhancement. As per the findings recorded by Claims Tribunal, the appellant has lost complete vision of right eye. As per the findings recorded by Claims Tribunal, the appellant has lost complete vision of right eye. As per Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the permanent disability of the appellant is 40 per cent. In appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of injured at Rs. 5,000 per month, which is just and proper. On assessing the loss of income due to 40 per cent permanent disability, the amount comes to Rs. 24,000 per annum. At the time of accident, the appellant was 55-60 years of age. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier of 9 would be applicable. On applying the multiplier of 9, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,16,000. After deducting Rs. 40,000 awarded by the Tribunal, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,76,000. Thus, the total enhancement comes to Rs. 1,76,000. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed in part with costs. The appellant is held entitled to receive total sum of Rs. 1,76,000 in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal without affecting the direction of the Tribunal regarding depositing the amount of compensation and liability. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.