RAFIQ, J.—On hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am satisfied that the appellant is prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within time. 2. Delay is condoned. The application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 3. This appeal has been filed at the instance of the claimant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. The appellant who was a driver met with an accident on 14.5.1997 involving vehicle insured with the respondent insurance company. He suffered fracture in right leg, leading to permanent disability that was assessed at 14.16%. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.72,000 which included, Rs.25,000 for pain and suffering, Rs.5,000 for treatment, Rs.2,000 for special diet, Rs.5,000 for transportation and Rs.35,000 for future loss of income. 4. Contention of Shri Ali Mohd., learned counsel for the appellant is that income of the appellant-claimant was Rs.5,000 per month and therefore the Tribunal ought to have computed the compensation under the head of future loss of income by adopting the multiplier system. If that was done, the appellant who was at that time aged 30 years, the multiplier of 17 would have been applicable and on that basis, the annual loss of income would have been come much more than what has been totally awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of Rs.25,000 on the head of pain and suffering, hardly satisfies the compensation, therefore, the compensation should be adequately enhanced. 5. Shri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and argued that income of Rs.5,000 as claimed by the appellant has not been accepted by the Tribunal because the driver in the year 1997 was not being paid a sum of Rs.5,000 as salary. Even if the Tribunal has not applied the multiplier system, the quantum of compensation cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable and does not call for any interference. 6. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that though the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000 on the head of pain and suffering, but awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs.35,000 under the head future loss of income, does not appear to be proper in the facts of the case when the age of the appellant was only 10 years at the time of accident. If the multiplier method would be adopted accepting the income of Rs.3,000 per month. If the multiplier method would be adopted accepting the income of Rs.3,000 per month. The compensation would come to (14% of 3000) Rs.420 x 12 x 17=Rs.85,680. However, in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation under the head loss of future income from Rs.35,000 to Rs.63,000. Thus the total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.72,000 to Rs.1,00,000. The appellant is entitled to interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed.