Judgment 1. Appellant-claimant is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 9th April 1999 delivered by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 28 of 1995. 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of claimant/appellant Vilas Bagde that he had prayed for compensation in view of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act from respondents jointly and severally in respect of motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.1.1995 at about 07.30 am in front of house of Dr Rathor, LIC Colony, Nagpur when claimant Vilas was serving as a constable and was attached with Ajni Police station and he was going to attend his duty by his scooter. He was dashed by Jeep bearing No. MH-31/H-1259 due to which claimant fell down and sustain ED compound shaft femur left. The claimant was admitted in the Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur and took treatment for about twenty days before he was discharged on 12th February 1995. He also underwent operation of his leg and rod was inserted in his leg and wiring was also done. Appellant had to take private medical treatment in Dr Lavange's Hospital. His permanent disability was assessed at 45% by doctor. At the time of accident, appellant was aged about 26 years only. He had spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for his medical treatment, but due to permanent disability, he is unable to walk properly and unable to run and having been rendered physically unfit, he could not appear for promotional examination. 3. Respondent Oriental Insurance Company with whom offending motor vehicle was insured, disputed its liability. Claimant had also relied upon police papers such as, injury certificate, disability certificate, salary certificate etc. 4. Learned Member was satisfied that appellant suffered permanent disability due to accident on 23.1.1995 and was entitled to claim compensation. However, compensation awarded was meagre only in the sum of Rs. 54,725/- only. It is submitted that due to injuries suffered, applicant is permanently disabled to the extent of 45% and is unable to serve as police constable as prior to the incident of accident. He, therefore, claimed compensation on the basis of monthly emoluments, medical expenses, pains and sufferings, special diet, assistance of attendant and conveyance with reasonable interest. 54,725/- only. It is submitted that due to injuries suffered, applicant is permanently disabled to the extent of 45% and is unable to serve as police constable as prior to the incident of accident. He, therefore, claimed compensation on the basis of monthly emoluments, medical expenses, pains and sufferings, special diet, assistance of attendant and conveyance with reasonable interest. It is argued that since claim of the appellant was under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, appellant was not required to prove negligence or tortuous act as Section 163A read with Schedule II of the Act provide for compensation payable based upon structural formula as provided in Schedule II. Therefore, injured could have been awarded compensation in accordance with prescribed format from the driver, owner and insurer and they could be held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that monthly salary of the appellant was in the sum of Rs. 2257/-. Considering the permanent disability to the extent of 45%, monthly compensation payable could have been calculated @ Rs. 1200/- per month. Multiplied by 12, the compensation annually comes to Rs. 14,400/-. Considering the age of claimant which was 26 years at the time of accident, multiplier in the facts and circumstances of the case could have been “18” as appropriate multiplier. Considering the compensation which comes to Rs. 2,59,200/-, the appellant also claimed medical expenses in the sum of Rs. 5725/ on the basis of bills and non-pecuniary damages on account of pains, sufferings, special diet, requirement of attendant etc. in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- only. Thus, appellant is claiming compensation which is reasonable and just in the sum of Rs. 2,74,925/- inclusive of non-pecuniary damages. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the fact that the application was under Section 163A of the Act, the amount of compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,74,925/- ought to have been awarded by the tribunal instead of meagre amount as awarded. 7. Hence, appeal is allowed with costs. Award is modified as under: Respondents shall jointly and severally pay amount of Rs. 2,74,925/- to the claimant/appellant inclusive of no-fault liability along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.