Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement against the award dated 13.9.2004 passed in MAC No. 50/2004. 2. The brief facts of the case according to claim petition are that 9.12.1998, when the present appellant was going on Scooter with his friend Manoj Jain from Ajmer Road to Queens Road, at about 4.30 p.m., a Matador No. RJ 14E-0245, came from Moti Nagar side and hit the scooter bearing No.PB 1M 2131 on wrong side, which resulted in serious injuries to the present appellant and death of Manoj Kumar. The present appellant filed claim petition and the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,17,355/- as compensation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record, specially the impugned judgment and award. 4. The contention of the present appellant is that he was of 21 years at the time of accident and he as earning Rs.6,000/- per month by running a shop in the name of Beauty Hair Dresser. It was also stated that he received grievous injuries. He was hospitalized on 9.12.1998. He was operated on 16.12.1998 and 1.1.1999 and discharged on 10.1.1999. Again he was admitted on 17.2.1999 and operated on 23.2.1999. Thereafter, he was again admitted in the hospital on 28.3.1999 and was operated on 2.4.1999. Thereafter he was again admitted on 20.8.1999 and was further operated on 24.8.1999 and further on 22.5.2002 he was admitted in the hospital and was operated on 24.5.2002. He has suffered permanent disability which was assessed at 42%. He remained in hospital for 71 days. He suffered grave mental agony and physical discomfort and the learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs.90,000/- for his permanent disability without any reason and hence award should be enhanced. 5. It is not in dispute that the present appellant remained in hospital for 71 days and he has operated for six times and according to the medical opinion, he was having 42% disability but the learned Tribunal has not rightly assessed the implication of these injuries and treatments. Rather, lump-sum amount of Rs.90,000/- has been awarded without any basis. It is not in dispute that in calculating the compensation for injuries, the scientific method is to apply multiplier system. Rather, lump-sum amount of Rs.90,000/- has been awarded without any basis. It is not in dispute that in calculating the compensation for injuries, the scientific method is to apply multiplier system. The present appellant has stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from running shop of hair dresser but no documentary evidence has been produced. It has not been disputed that the present appellant is having shop and taking note of the fact that he is earning some income from the above shop, therefore, his income should be assessed as Rs.1,800/- per month. Looking to his age, the appropriate multiplier would be 17. Hence, the amount comes to Rs. 1800 x 12 x 17 = Rs.3,67,200 x 42% = Rs. 1,54,224/-. 6. Looking to the fact that the present appellant has been operated for six times and he remained in the hospital for 71 days and he has to undergone regular treatment from 9.12.1998 to May, 2002 but nothing has been awarded by the learned Tribunal for physical discomfort and mental agony, which he has undergone during his long period and repeated surgeries. Hence, Rs.30,000/- is assessed for his pain, suffering and agony. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.1,54,224 + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 1,84,224. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.37,255/- for personal attendant and medical bills. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,84,224 + Rs. 37,355 = Rs. 2,21,579. The learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,27,355/-. Thus the amount of compensation is increased by Rs.2,21,579 - Rs. 1,27,355 = Rs. 94,224/-. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is increased by Rs. 87,124/- along with interest @ 7½% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing appeal till actual payment is made.