Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for the enhancement thereof. 2. Background facts, in a nut shell, are thus: "That on 3.3.1999 injured and deceased Dinesh, Pooran Singh, Rakesh, Mahipal Singh and Vikram Singh were coming from Paota to Kotputli in Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ 32-C-0248. At 11.00 AM near Raheda on National Highway No. 8, truck bearing Registration No. HR-47-2414, being driven negligently and at an excessive speed, appeared from opposite direction and hit the Jeep, as a result of which the Jeep over-turned. At the same time, another truck bearing registration no. RJ-32-G-0478, being driven negligently and at an excessive speed, appeared from the direction of Kotputli and hit the over-turned Jeep, lying on the road. Resultantly, Dinesh, Pooran Singh, Rakesh, Mahipal Singh and Vikram Singh succumbed to death and other passengers sustained injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid accident, First Information Report No. 147/1999 came to be registered at Police Station, Kotputli and the police, after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the non claimants no. 1 to 4. The claimant-appellant Surendra Singh (injured) filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur. The Learned Tribunal, having analyzed all the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, passed an award of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of claimant appellant and after deducting Rs. 25,000/-, which had already been paid to the appellant as interim award, held him entitled to get remaining Rs. 25,000/-." 3. Since the question of enhancement of amount of compensation is involved and loss of income is to be reckoned in view of the formula prescribed in the M.V. Act for the disabled persons, it was not considered indispensable to give any notice to the opposite party. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the appellant sustained 7.37% permanent disability. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the injured to be Rs. 1500/-. If the calculation is made as per the structured formula, it comes to Rs. 105/- and after applying the multiplier of 16, it comes to about Rs. 20,200/-, but the learned Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 12,000/-. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the injured to be Rs. 1500/-. If the calculation is made as per the structured formula, it comes to Rs. 105/- and after applying the multiplier of 16, it comes to about Rs. 20,200/-, but the learned Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 12,000/-. Hence, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified and the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced. 6. Having ruminated over the submissions made at the bar and cautiously scanned the impugned award, it is noticed that the monthly income of the appellant was assessed to be Rs. 1500/-. The appellant is found to have sustained 7.37% permanent disability. If we calculate as per the structured formula, the amount of compensation comes as under: 1500 x 7.37/100x12x16 = Rs. 20,160/- (round figure is Rs. 20,200/-). Thus, the learned Tribunal is found to have awarded an abysmally low amount under the head of permanent disability. 7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation under the head of permanent injury is enhanced from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 20,200/- and hence the total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 58,200/- and after deducting Rs. 25,000/-, which has already been paid to the appellant as interim award, he is held entitled to claim Rs. 33,200/- from the respondents. 8. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award stands modified as indicated here-in-above. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.