JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award dated 10.6.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in MACP No. 57-B/II-2002, titled Sh. Desh Raj Bhardwaj versus Veena Devi and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- with 9% interest per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Owner, driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus the only point to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise? 5. I have gone through the impugned award. I am of the considered view that the impugned award is inadequate for the following reasons. 6. It is unfortunate that the learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the appeal, so fat as it relates to future income. He has not pressed the appeal on other issues. His statement is taken on record. Thus, I deem it proper to deal with whether the claimant is entitled to compensation under the head “loss of income.” 7. Admittedly, the claimant was a government employee and he has suffered 10% permanent disability which has been proved by Dr. PW2 Dr. Bhanu Awasthi, Assistant Professor of Orthopedics Surgery and have been discussed by the Tribunal in paras 6 to 14 of the impugned award. It is stated that this 10% permanent disability has affected his income and earning capacity. He also came to be transferred because of that injury. 8. Admittedly, the age of the claimant was 54 years at the time of accident and he would have retired at the age of 58 years. That injury would be a handicap for his re-employment and for other jobs. Thus, at the best, it can be said that the claimant was entitled to loss of future income, in view of the said disability. The multiplier applicable, as per the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with Sarla Verma and ors. That injury would be a handicap for his re-employment and for other jobs. Thus, at the best, it can be said that the claimant was entitled to loss of future income, in view of the said disability. The multiplier applicable, as per the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with Sarla Verma and ors. versus Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and anr. Reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, case is “11”. Admittedly, the income of the injured was Rs.22000/- per month at the relevant point of time, has lost source of income to the tune of Rs.2200/- per month. Thus, the total amount of compensation which the claimant is entitled to under the head “loss of future income” is Rs.2200x12x11= Rs.2,90,400/. Accordingly, the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.2,90,400/- with interest, as given in the impugned award. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 10. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 6 weeks from today in the Registry. The Registry, on deposit, is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 11. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.