Judgment V.M. Sahai, J.—I have heard Mr. Mausin Hakim holding the brief of Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sandip Shah, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 3. In spite of service of notice, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any appearance. 2. This First Appeal has been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 56/2005. 3. The brief facts are that an accident took place on 03.04.2005 at about 04:45 p.m. in the evening, in which the appellant received injuries while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a Scooter bearing Registration No. GJK9933. The Scooter was driven by Maganbhai Chhaganbhai Nayaka. The Scooter collided with Toyota Qualis Car bearing Registration No. GJ1TC155, which was insured by Respondent No. 3. In the said accident, the appellant received injuries for which he has filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation. 3.1. The Tribunal while answering Issue No. 1 has recorded a finding of fact that the driver of the Toyota Car was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. 3.2. The other finding recorded by the Tribunal is that though the income claimed by the appellant from the service and agriculture could not be proved, however, the Tribunal had assessed the income of the injured to be Rs. 2,400/- per month and total disability was 35%, which included right hand disability and right leg disability. However, before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the total disability be taken at only 18%. Therefore, the Tribunal came to be conclusion that future prospective monthly loss of income would come to Rs. 432/- with 18% disability, on the income of Rs. 2,400/- per month and yearly it would come to Rs. 5,184/-. Therefore, by applying multiplier of 12 the Tribunal had held that the amount of 62,208/- was payable to the appellant as compensation towards future economic loss. Under the other heads also, some amounts were awarded. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the Tribunal has applied incorrect multiplier. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 16 instead of 12 for working out the compensation for future loss suffered by the appellant. The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Under the other heads also, some amounts were awarded. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the Tribunal has applied incorrect multiplier. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 16 instead of 12 for working out the compensation for future loss suffered by the appellant. The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 in paragraph 40 mentioned a schedule as to how the multiplier is to be applied in case of injuries. So far as injuries is concerned, Column IV would be relevant and for the age group between 3135 years, multiplier of 16 has been provided. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 that the age of the appellant is 35 years. Therefore, multiplier of 16 as provided in Sarla Verma’s case (Supra) would be applicable. The relief for enhancement of compensation claimed by the appellant appears to be justified. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation towards future economic loss would come to Rs. 82,944/-. The amount of Rs. 62,208/- has been awarded by the Tribunal towards future economic loss which has been deposited by the Respondent No. 3 and withdrawn by the appellant. So far as the other heads are concerned, the appellant has also received the amount. The appellant is entitled for enhancement in compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,736/-. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 20,736/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. The deficit Court fees, if any, shall be recovered from the awarded additional amount. The said additional amount shall be deposited by Respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal concerned within a period of two months from today, which shall be withdrawn by the appellant. The parties shall bear their own costs.