JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 30-9-2014 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu whereby a sum of Rs. 10,27,200/- has been awarded along with interest @ 7% per annum in favour of the claimant-appellant Ishwar Singh. The operative part of the award is reproduced as under : VERNACULAR MATTER 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimant Ishwar Singh on 19-8-2009 at about 3.00 p.m. was going on his motor cycle and when he crossed the breaker at buse stand Noonia Gothra, then all of sudden an Indica Car bearing No. D1-3C-AX-5635 being driven by respondent No. 1 Kapil Kumar hit the appellant, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and received multiple injuries which were dangerous to life in nature. He was then shifted to Govt. Hospital, Jhunjhunu and thereafter referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur from where he was transferred to Santokba Durlabhji Hospital and Fortis Hospital, Jaipur where he undergone his treatment. Upon that, an FIR No. 122/2009 was registered at P. S. Bagad for the offence under Section 279, 337 and 338, IPC. After usual investigation, police filed challen. 3. Thereafter, the claimant-appellant preferred a claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,94,518/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. Notices to the claim petition were issued, reply on behalf of opposite side was filed and as many as four issues were framed. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award under appeal as mentioned herein above. Hence this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation amount. 4. Mr. Shah, Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Mr. K. N. Tiwari and Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant have vehemently contended that at the time of accident, the appellant was a renouned practicing Advocate, his date of birth was 2-7-1977 attained the age of only 32 years and he was practicing through out district Jhunjhunu i.e. Chirawa, Khetri, Pilani etc. It is also submitted that the appellant was enrolled with Bar Council having enrolment No. R/183/2002 and at the time of accident, he was having experience of 7 years-of advocacy and was earning approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is also submitted that the appellant was enrolled with Bar Council having enrolment No. R/183/2002 and at the time of accident, he was having experience of 7 years-of advocacy and was earning approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is also submitted that after the said accident, the appellant was unable to carry on his advocacy as he received multiple injuries on different parts of the body like bone, skull, eyes etc. It is further submitted that the appellant completely lost his left eye whereas lost partially right eye as well and for doing routine work he needs one attendant all the time. It has also been submitted that after accident, the appellant remained hospitalized for more than 7 months at different hospitals initially at Govt. Hospital, Jhunjhunu and thereafter at SMS Hospital, Santokba Durlarbhji and Fortis Hospital, Jaipur where he suffered mental and physical agony due to injuries at tow, elbow, wrist etc. and also his clothes, shoes, mobile and watch were damaged. It has also been argued that had the appellant been not met with that accident, he would have certainly practised for more than 40 years. In support of his claim, the appellant-claimant produced as many as 343 documents which were duly approved by him whereas in rebuttal no evidence or document has been produced and all the issues have been decided in favour of appellant. It is also submitted that on account of grievous injuries, the appellant-claimant received disability upto 40% and now cannot do advocacy properly. 5. It has further been contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and the learned Tribunal has not properly considered and appreciated the evidence submitted by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 15 : ( AIR 2013 SC 3378 ) Neerupam Mohan Mathur v. New India Assurance Company, (2013) 8 SCC 389 : ( AIR 2013 SC 3429 ); Rekha Jain v. National Ins. Co. Ltd.; (2012) 12 SCC 198 : ( AIR 2012 SC 3381 ); New India Assurance Co. v. Gopali and Ors.; (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Rajesh and Ors. Co. Ltd.; (2012) 12 SCC 198 : ( AIR 2012 SC 3381 ); New India Assurance Co. v. Gopali and Ors.; (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 400 : (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 1023); V. Sudha v. P. Ganapathi Bhat and Anr., (2013) 7 SCC 476 : ( AIR 2013 SC 3830 ); Vimal Kanwar and Ors. v. Kishore Dan and Ors. and (2013) 9 SCC 166 : ( AIR 2013 SC 2293 ) Jiju Kuruvila and Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors. 7. On other hand, Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent. Ins. Company along with Mr. B. K. Sharma, Deputy Manager, National Ins. Company are present. During the course of argument, this Court thinks it proper to deduce the matter keeping in view the pious work of the Lok Adalat and has raised/framed questions as under : (i) whether an Advocate who has suffered 40% disability in an accident, who cannot do practise as of now properly, received multiple injuries on various parts of the body, remained hospitalized for more than 7 months in different hospitals at jaipur, requires one attendant for routine work etc. etc., should be benefited by awarding compensation or not? 8. The counsel for respondents fairly and honestly replied by their heart that such Advocates should be benefited by awarding compensation; and another question raised was that; (ii) whether compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 to 20 lacs should be enhanced or not? 9. The counsel for respondents agreed to enhance only Rs. 10.0 lacs in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Thus, keeping in view the pious work of Lok Adalat, at this stage, the counsel for both the parties i.e. the claimants and the insurance company agree that this appeal may be disposed of on the basis of the aforesaid consent/compromise. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company gave consent for enhancing the amount of the award i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) in favour of claimants. This amount shall be in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal and the claimant-appellant is held entitled to get the aforesaid amount. 13. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company gave consent for enhancing the amount of the award i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) in favour of claimants. This amount shall be in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal and the claimant-appellant is held entitled to get the aforesaid amount. 13. Accordingly, in view of above, this appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that the respondent-insurance company shall deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount with the learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the same shall be disbursed to the appellant-claimant immediately. In case the amount is not paid to the appellant-claimant within the stipulated period of four weeks, the appellant-claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of passing of this judgment. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. 14. However, it is made clear that if there is any breach of insurance policy or violation of the terms of the policy, the respondent/insurance company shall be at liberty to move an application before the executing Court for recovering the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle or he can move an application before this Court for recalling of the order. 15. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated herein above.