RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant appellant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur vide award dated 23/8/2005 for amputation of his right leg from above the knee that was sustained by the appellant in a road accident involving the vehicle insured with the respondent-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and the permanent disability that was sustained by the appellant was assessed at 60%. He was 22 years of age and the Tribunal accepted his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- per month and applied the multiplier of 17. Thus, compensation of Rs.6,12,000/- was awarded applying the multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.3,60,000/- for loss of future income accepting 60% permanent disability. Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/- for loss of income for six months, Rs.5,000/- for actual medical expenses, Rs.12,000/- for transportation and attendant and Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and nutritious diet. A total sum of Rs.4,05,000/- was awarded as compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant apart from cultivating the agriculture land and doing the agricultural work also use to sale the milk on his motorcycle. He also used to drive the tractor. His monthly income was not less than Rs.7500/- per month and therefore accepting his income only Rs.3000/- per month is towards the lower side. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others dated 23/4/2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.3723 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.24489 of 2010, wherein Supreme Court held that the workers and employees working in private and unorganized sectors should also be held entitled to future prospects. The court took judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in that category is increased substantially. It was held that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income. 3. It is argued that amount of Rs.10,000/- is a very negligible amount of compensation for pain and suffering and nutritious diet and therefore that amount deserves to be enhanced. Besides, learned Tribunal has also awarded a very meager sum as compared to what was claimed by the appellant in all other non-pecuniary heads. 3. It is argued that amount of Rs.10,000/- is a very negligible amount of compensation for pain and suffering and nutritious diet and therefore that amount deserves to be enhanced. Besides, learned Tribunal has also awarded a very meager sum as compared to what was claimed by the appellant in all other non-pecuniary heads. It was also argued that multiplier of 18 should be applied at the age of 22 years as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC). 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and submitted that benefit of 'future prospects' cannot be granted to the appellant because he did not have any stable job with prospects of increments or promotion or pay revision etc. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the observation made by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. Learned counsel submitted that yield from the agriculture would continue to be available to the appellant and therefore that cannot be treated as loss of his income. Learned counsel submitted that award is just and proper, which is not liable to be interfered by this Court. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that accepting income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month may taken as just and reasonable keeping in view the value of rupee that carry in the year 1998 when the accident took place however, as per the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi supra, appellant must be held to entitle to same benefit on the head of “future prospects”. Supreme Court in Santosh Devi supra has held in para 14 of the report, as under:- “14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/ emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/ instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma’s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.” 6. The appellant therefore is entitled to benefit of atleast 30% of the accepted income thus, computation of loss of future prospects should be Rs.3,900/- (after adding Rs.900/- i.e. 30% of Rs.3,000/-) adopting the multiplier of 18, which is correct multiplier now as per the judgment of Sarla Verma, supra for the age group of persons from 15-20 & 21-25 years. Amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for “pain & suffering and nutritious diet” also cannot be said to be just and reasonable amount of compensation because his right leg has been amputed from above the knee. Rs.1,00,000/- therefore should be awarded under the head of “pain & suffering and nutritious diet”. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 23/8/2005 is modified to the following effect:- (a) Rs.3000/- p.m. accepted income. (b) Rs.900/- 30% of Rs.3,000/- for future prospects. (c) 3000+900=3900. (d) 3900x12x18x60%=5,05,440. (e) Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded for “pain & suffering & nutritious diet”. (f) Rs.18,000/- awarded for loss of income for six months, Rs.5,000/- awarded for actual medical expenses and Rs.12,000/- awarded for transportation and attendant are maintained. (g) 5,05,440+1,00,000+18,000+5,000+12,000=6,40,440. (h) The original award of Rs.4,05,000/- is enhanced to Rs.6,40,440/-. (i) The claimant-appellants shall be entitled to interest @6% on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,35,440/- from the date of filing claim petition. (j) Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.