JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals arise out of the common judgment turn award dated 7.9.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta whereby the 3 separate claim application filed by the claimants, in relation 10 an accident which occurred on 11.6.2004, were partially allowed. The appellants have filed these appeals seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to them. 2. Facts in brief are that on 11.6.2004, at about 10 P.M., the claimants lagdev, Omi and Jeetu were all going on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 21 4M 9467. They were hit by a turbo truck bearing registration No. RJ 13 G 2547, being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by its driver, the respondent Mo. 1, Shri Kewal Singh. The truck was owned by the respondent No. 2. Shri Khushwant Singh and was insured by the respondent No. 3 the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 3. All the three riders of the motorcycle were injured in the accident. Three separate claim petitions were filed on behalf of injured Jagdev, Smt. Omi and Jeetu before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta. The claim applications were partly allowed and compensation was awarded to the claimants as indicated below. Claim No. 69/2004 Jagdev Ram Rs. 1,19,180/-. Claim No. 70/2004 Smt. Omi Devi Rs. 1,62,178/-. Claim No. 71/2004 Jeetu Rs. 1,12,691/-. 4. The issues regarding the cause of the accident being the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award jointly and severally with the owner and driver of the vehicle and the entitlement of the appellants to receive compensation were decided by the Tribunal against the non-claimants and have become final against them as none of them has challenged the award. The claimants have approached this Court by way of these three appeals seeking enhancement. 5. The consideration of each appeal for enhancement is required to be done individually on the basis of the evidence available in each case. The appeals are thus taken up for consideration individually. 1. C.M.A. No. 108/2006 Jeetu v. Keval Singh 6. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,12,691/- to the appellant as against the claim of Rs. 15,51,100/-. 7. 5. The consideration of each appeal for enhancement is required to be done individually on the basis of the evidence available in each case. The appeals are thus taken up for consideration individually. 1. C.M.A. No. 108/2006 Jeetu v. Keval Singh 6. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,12,691/- to the appellant as against the claim of Rs. 15,51,100/-. 7. Shri Sharma and Shri Khileri, learned Counsels for the appellants submitted that the appellant was a young boy aged 7 years at the time of the ill-fated accident and he sustained multiple injuries in the accident. The vision of his right eye was totally lost. He also lost the toes of his right leg. His permanent disability was certified as 25%. As per the learned Counsel, the Tribunal did not award appropriate compensation to the appellant for the injuries caused to him and for the permanent disability suffered thereby. That the meager sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded to him for the loss of vision and the mental pain and ignominy which he shall have to suffer for the remainder of his life is grossly unjust and inadequate and should be enhanced appropriately. That interest of 6% awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation is also on the lower side and should be enhanced to 12%. 8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the appellant and urged that the compensation awarded is just and proper and calls for no interference. 9. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and record. 10. The fact regarding appellant, a boy aged 7 years at the time of accident having lost his right eye in the accident is not disputed. A finding was recorder by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant that he lost his right eye in the accident. It is also not disputed that the toes of his right foot were severed because of the injuries received in the accident. Though, no medical certificate certifying the total loss of eye was brought on record but the fact remains that when the child was examined in the Court, he displayed his empty eye socket to the Court. It is also not disputed that the toes of his right foot were severed because of the injuries received in the accident. Though, no medical certificate certifying the total loss of eye was brought on record but the fact remains that when the child was examined in the Court, he displayed his empty eye socket to the Court. Therefore, despite the permanent disability certificate mentioning the permanent disability at 25% only, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appellant having lost his right eye and all the five toes of his right foot in the accident suffered an actual permanent disability of not less than 50%. Though, looking to the tender age of the appellant, the exact assessment of loss of earning capacity would not be possible with any degree of certainty, but in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, this Court is of opinion that the loss of earning capacity deserves to be accepted to the extent of 50%. The notional income in cases involving children below the age of 15 years can be accepted at Rs. 15,000/- per year as has been laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in numerous decisions. 11. The multiplier to be applied would be 15 as held in the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in (2013) ACC 907 (SC) . 50% rise in income by future prospects also deserves to be added for computing the compensation awardable to the appellant. The appellant received 6 grievous and 9 simple injuries in the accident. In all a sum of Rs. 30,000/- deserves to be awarded to him for the injuries suffered by him. As the appellant lost his eye and thereby, he will have a diminished vision and shall also have to suffer mental pain and ignominy because of the same, he deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh under the head of pain, suffering and mental agony. As the appellant lost his eye and thereby, he will have a diminished vision and shall also have to suffer mental pain and ignominy because of the same, he deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh under the head of pain, suffering and mental agony. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following computation deserves to be approved for assessing the enhanced compensation awardable to the appellant: Total Compensation for Medical Expenditure as awarded by the Tribunal L 10,441/- L 10,441/- Compensation for Transportation Expenditure, Cost of Attendant and Special Diet as awarded by the Tribunal L 7,000/- L 17,441/- Loss of Future Income @ 50% of earning capacity 50% of (L 15,000 x 15 + 50%) = L 1,68,750/- L 1,86,191/- Compensation for Pain, Suffering and mental agony L 1,00.000/- L 2,86.191/- Compensation towards 6 grievous and 9 simple injuries L 30,000/- L 3,16,191/- Total Compensation Awarded L 3,16,191/- Rounded Off L 3,16,000/- 12. The interest of 6% awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation awarded is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to 7.5% on the whole award from the date of filing of the claim. 13. The appeal thus deserves to be accepted in part and the appellant is held entitled to enhanced compensation as indicated above. 2. C.M.A. No. 194/2006 Smt. Omi Devi v. Kewal Singh 14. The appellant filed a claim petition, claiming total compensation of Rs. 11,71,000/-. The Tribunal awarded her a sum of Rs. 1,62,178/- as compensation. The appellant has approached this Court seeking enhancement in the award. 15. Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred on the following points whilst concluding the compensation awardable to the appellant. The appellant received 48% permanent disability because of the injuries received by her in the accident. No amount was awarded under the head of pain, suffering and mental agony. The Tribunal wrongly assessed her income to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum as against the claimed income of Rs. 100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per month. He submitted that there was no justification for the Tribunal to have conjecturally held the income of the appellant to be Rs. 15,000/- per year. He submits that even by applying the standards of minimum wages, the minimum amount which the appellant could be assumed to be earning to the year 2004 would not be less than Rs. He submitted that there was no justification for the Tribunal to have conjecturally held the income of the appellant to be Rs. 15,000/- per year. He submits that even by applying the standards of minimum wages, the minimum amount which the appellant could be assumed to be earning to the year 2004 would not be less than Rs. 70/- per day. No consideration was made for rise in income by future prospects. No compensation was awarded for the 51 days i.e. the period within the appellant was hospitalised for the treatment of her injuries. No amount was awarded to the appellant towards pain, suffering and mental agony and for the permanent disability suffered by her. 16. Thus, he prays that the compensation be assessed by taking into account the aforesaid criterion and urged that appropriate amounts be awarded to the appellant under these heads. He further contended that the interest of 6% applied by the Tribunal is unduly low and should be enhanced at 12%. 17. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the appellant. It was urged that the Tribunal has already taken an unduly liberal view in assessing the compensation awardable to the appellant. They, thus submitted that no enhancement is called for in the compensation awarded to the appellant. 18. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record. The appellant specifically deposed in her testimony that before the accident, she used to earn Rs. 100/- per day by working at a brick kiln. The appellant's testimony was not challenged by the respondents by way of any meaningful cross-examination. The Tribunal observed that it was not possible to believe that the appellant would be getting work all 30 days of the month and thereby, her income was held to be Rs. 15,000/- annually. The approach of the Tribunal cannot be said to be just and proper. If at all, the Tribunal was not convinced by the oral evidence led by the appellant then, at least the criterion of minimum wages should have been applied by the Tribunal for assessing her income. A lady contributes a great deal to the home by doing the day to day chores and household jobs. If at all, the Tribunal was not convinced by the oral evidence led by the appellant then, at least the criterion of minimum wages should have been applied by the Tribunal for assessing her income. A lady contributes a great deal to the home by doing the day to day chores and household jobs. The contribution made by her in this fashion, though cannot be assessed in money but is invaluable none the same, in this backdrop, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant's income, be it by working on a brick kiln or by doing the household jobs, cannot be held to be less than the minimum wages applicable at the relevant point of time. In the year 2004, the minimum wages for a semi skilled labourer was about Rs. 70/- per day. The said figure deserves to be accepted for assessing the appellant's income in this case. Addition of 20% as rise in income by future prospects is also justified. The appellant remained hospitalised for about 51 days for the treatment of her injuries. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- deserves to be awarded to her for the period of hospitalisation suffered by her and expenses borne during this period. She suffered numerous injuries and 48% permanent disability as a result of the accident. No amount whatsoever was awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant under the head of pain, suffering and mental agony. An amount of Rs. 75,000/- deserves to be awarded to the appellant under this head. The appellant's age as per the claim petition was 30 years. Thus, the multiplier to be applied for calculating the loss of income as per Sarla Verma's case would be 17. 19. An amount of Rs. 75,000/- deserves to be awarded to the appellant under this head. The appellant's age as per the claim petition was 30 years. Thus, the multiplier to be applied for calculating the loss of income as per Sarla Verma's case would be 17. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following computation is approved for calculating the enhanced compensation awardable to the appellant: Total Compensation for Hospitalization L 25,000/- L 25,000/- Compensation for Injuries as awarded by the Tribunal L 14,000/- L 39,000/- Compensation for Medical Expenditure as awarded by the Tribunal L 16,278/- L 55,278/- Compensation for Loss of Income during the treatment period as awarded by the Tribunal L 25,000/- L 57,778/- Compensation for cost of engaging an attendant, Special diet and Transportation expenditure as awarded by the Tribunal L 7,000/- L 64,778/- Loss of Future Income (at 48% disability) by adding 20% as rise in income by future prospects 48% of (L 2,100/- x 12 x 17 + 20%) = L 2,46,758/- L 3,11,536/- Compensation for Pain and Suffering L 75,000/- L 3,86,536/- Total Compensation Awarded L 3,86,536/- ROUNDED OFF L 3,87,000/- 20. This Court is of the opinion that the interest of 6% awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation is unjust and the same deserves to be enhanced to 7.5%. 21. The appeal thus deserves to be and is accepted in part as indicated above. The appellant shall now entitled to enhanced compensation of rupees, with an merest of 7.5% on the whole award from the date of Filing of the claim. 3. C.M.A. No. 1128/2006 Jagdev Ram v. Kewal Singh 22. The appellant Jagdev Ram having received injuries in the accident, Filed the claim application claiming a total compensation of Rs. 16,45,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him compensation of Rs. 1,19,180/-. The appellant has approached this Court by of the instant appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to him. 23. Shri Sharma and Shri Khileri learned Counsels for the appellants vehemently contended:- That the appellant received 48% permanent disability in his leg as a result of the accident and yet the Tribunal did not award appropriate amount to the appellant towards loss of earning capacity as a result of the injuries caused to him in the accident. That apart, he also received grievous injuries on his mouth due to which his ability to chew food has been severely impaired. That apart, he also received grievous injuries on his mouth due to which his ability to chew food has been severely impaired. That the Tribunal did not award appropriate amount to the appellant under the head of pain, suffering and mental agony and for the permanent disability suffered by him. That the appellant was not awarded any amount for the future medical expenses which will have to be incurred by the appellant for the continued treatment of his injuries. That the interest of 6% awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation is inadequate and the same should be enhanced to 12%. 24. Thus, he prayed that appropriate enhancement be directed in the compensation awarded to the appellant. 25. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the appellant.It was urged that the compensation awarded to the appellant is already on the higher side and no enhancement is called for in the same. 26. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record. 27. At the time of the accident, the appellant was admittedly employed with the State Government as a Gram Sewak. Thus, merely because of the injuries suffered by him, there would not be any apparent impairment on his earning capacity and he would not suffer any loss of salary. The appellant did not plead that he faced any difficulty in performing his duties as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident. He rather admitted in his cross-examination that there was no reduction in the emoluments, which he continued to receive after the accident. Thus, the Tribunal rightly refused to award any compensation to the appellant under the head of loss of income. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded to the appellant under the head of pain, suffering and mental agony is grossly inadequate. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the 45% disability on the appellant's leg and the nature of injuries caused on his facial region, the appellant deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- under this head. The appellant has claimed in the appeal that he still has to incur recurring medical expenses for the treatment of his injuries. 70,000/- under this head. The appellant has claimed in the appeal that he still has to incur recurring medical expenses for the treatment of his injuries. An application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. supported with bills of expenditure for treatment of his injuries has been filed in support of this contention. The application is not disputed or opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company, in this view of the matter, the appellant deserves to be awarded an additional amount of Rs. 35,000/- under the head of future medical expenses which he claims to have incurred for the further treatment of his injuries. 28. As a result, the compensation awarded to the appellant deserves to be enhanced appropriately as per the tabulation noted below: Total Compensation for Injuries suffered by the appellant as awarded by the Tribunal L 21,000 L 21,000 Compensation for Medical Expenditure as awarded by the Tribunal L 71,180/- L 92,180/- Compensation for Cost of Transportation, Special Diet and Attendant as awarded by the Tribunal L 7,000/- L 99,180/- Compensation for Permanent Disability L 70,000/- L 1,69,180/- Compensation for Future Medical Expenditure L 35,000/- L 2,04,180/- Total Compensation L 2,04,180/- ROUNDED OFF L 2,04,000/- 29. The appeal thus deserves to be accepted in part and is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation as indicated above. The appellant shall be entitled to 7.5% interest on the whole award amount from the date of filing of the claim.No cost.The record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.Appeals partly allowed. *******