JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimant against the judgment cum award dated 23.12.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat in M.A.C. Case No. 48/1995, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,44,950 for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident was partly allowed and he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000. 2. Facts in brief are that on 8.9.1994 the appellant was traveling in a Bus No. RPA-7585 which was proceeding from Gudia to Jaitaran. When the bus reached the Aageva Crossing by-pass, another bus bearing Registration No. Rj-19P-1820 coming from the direction of Nimaj being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by its driver collided with Bus No. RPA-7585 in which the appellant and some other persons were traveling. The appellant as well as the other occupants of the bus received injuries in the accident. 3. The appellant filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,44,950 for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The Tribunal framed usual issues for consideration. It was concluded that the drivers of the two buses involved in the accident drove their respective vehicles in rash and negligent manner and both were held to have contributed equally in causing the accident. The driver, owner and insurer of the Bus No. RJ-19P-1820 and the owners of Bus No. RPA-7585 which was not insured were held jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award to the extent of 50% each. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on these issues have not been challenged and have thus become final. The Tribunal accepted the claim application filed by the appellant in part and awarded him compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000 as stated above. The only issue which now remains alive for consideration of this Court in the appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to any enhancement in the compensation awarded to him. 4. Smt. Shobha Kanwar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal did not appreciate and assess the material available on record appropriately whilst awarding compensation to the appellant. 4. Smt. Shobha Kanwar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal did not appreciate and assess the material available on record appropriately whilst awarding compensation to the appellant. The appellant who was 40 years of age at the time of the accident suffered 25% disablement on the right lower limb due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 12 only whilst calculating compensation under the head of loss of income. No consideration was made for rise in income by future prospects. The appellant was a Mason by profession and also used to earn a substantial sum by farming and dairy activities. The Tribunal wrongly held his income to be a meagre Rs. 1,500 pet month as against the claimant's averment . regarding his income being Rs. 4,000 per month. Thus, she prayed that appropriate enhancement be directed in the compensation awarded to the appellant. 5. Per contra, Mr. D.S. Nimla, Mr. R.S. Chundawat, Mr. Rishi Chauhan and Mr. Ghanshyam Vaishnav, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the appellant and urged that the compensation awarded to the appellant by the Tribunal is just and sufficient and does not call for any enhancement. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award as well as the record. 7. The finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the income of the appellant being Rs. 1,500 per month is unjustified. In view of the evidence available on record and the nature of the appellant's job, his income deserves to be accepted as Rs. 2,000 per month at the time of the accident. Admittedly, the appellant suffered 25% permanent disability due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. In view of the fact that the appellant was 40 years of age at the time of accident, the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 12 only while calculating the loss of income. While assessing the compensation under the head of loss of income, in light of the table propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the appropriate multiplier to be applied would be 15 and not 12 as done by the Tribunal. While assessing the compensation under the head of loss of income, in light of the table propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the appropriate multiplier to be applied would be 15 and not 12 as done by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while assessing compensation did not consider rise in income by future prospects which is essential in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rqjbir Singh & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 . As the age of the appellant was 40 years at the time 'of the accident, 40% rise in income by future prospects deserves to be added to his income for calculating the loss of income. No amount was awarded by the Tribunal for the mental pain and agony suffered by the appellant due to the injuries received by him in the accident. A sum of Rs. 25,000 deserves to be awarded to the appellant under this head. Thus, the following calculation deserves to be approved for assessing the enhanced compensation awardable to the appellant in this case Total Annual income Rs. 2,000 x 12 Rs.24,000.00 40% Rise in income by future prospects Rs. 24,000+9,600 Rs.33,600.00 Loss of income due to 25% disability applying multiplier of 15 25% of (33600 x 15 = 5,04,000) Rs.1,26,000.00 Loss of income during the period of hospitalization as awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,000.00 Rs.1,28,000.00 Medical expenditure as awarded by the Tribunal Rs.5,000.00 Rs.1,33,000.00 Expenditure for boarding and lodging during the period the claimant remained hospitalized as awarded by the Tribunal Rs.10,000.00 Rs.1,43,000.00 Compensation for nutritional diet as awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,000.00 Rs.1,46,000.00 Transportation as awarded by the Tribunal Rs.6,000.00 Rs.1,52,000.00 Compensation for mental pain and agony Rs.25,000.00 Rs.1,77,000.00 Total Rs.1,77,000.00 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Sojat is modified and the appellant is held entitled all to Rs. 1,77,000 along with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim. Record be sent back. No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******