JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") dated 29/04/2006 in MACP No. 2144/1999 by which the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,91,000/- to the appellant herein-original claimant, the appellant herein-original claimant has preferred the present Appeal to enhance the amount of compensation. 2. It is not in dispute that in a vehicular accident, which took place on 11/02/1999, the appellant herein-original claimant sustained serious injuries and also sustained permanent partial disability and as such lost his one leg, which affected his earning capacity to the extent of 100% and, therefore, the appellant herein-original claimant filed the aforesaid Claim Petition before the learned tribunal claiming Rs. 10 lakhs towards compensation and by the impugned judgment and award the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,91,000/- under different heads towards compensation to the appellant herein-original claimant as under; Rs. 3,06,000/- future loss of income Rs. 1,00,000/- pain, shock and suffering Rs. 25,000/- attendant charges Rs. 50,000/- future medical treatment Rs. 5,000/- transportation charges Rs. 5,000/- special diet Rs. 4,91,000/- Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal the appellant herein-original claimant has preferred the present Appeal to enhance the amount of compensation. 3. Shri M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original claimant has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 3,06,000/- towards future loss of income assessing the income at Rs. 1,500/- per month only. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original claimant that while awarding future loss of income the learned tribunal has not considered the future rise in income at all. It is submitted that looking to the age of the original claimant 50% of Rs. 1500/- was required to be added as future rise in income while awarding future loss of income. 3.1 It is further submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original claimant that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 1500/- was required to be added as future rise in income while awarding future loss of income. 3.1 It is further submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original claimant that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It is vehemently submitted that as per catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court interest at the rate of 9% per annum should have been awarded. 3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original claimant that the learned tribunal has even erred in applying the multiplier of 17 while awarding future loss of income. It is further submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original claimant that the learned tribunal has as such erred in not awarding any amount towards loss of amenities in life etc. It is submitted that as one leg of the original claimant absolutely became useless and at the time of the accident the original claimant was aged about 22 years and even the original claimant was required to engage the attendant permanently, the learned tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life etc. Making the above submissions, it is requested to modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal and to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. 4. Shri K.K. Nair and Shri Sunil Parikh, learned advocates have appeared on behalf of the respective Insurers (respondents nos.3 and 6). They are not in a position to dispute and as such are not disputing that while awarding future loss of income the learned tribunal has not at all considered the future rise in income. They are also not in a position to dispute and as such are not disputing that while awarding future loss of income the learned tribunal has not at all considered the future rise in income. They are also not disputing that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 621 the original claimant shall be entitled to the multiplier of 18. They are also not disputing that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 621 the original claimant shall be entitled to the multiplier of 18. They have also requested to pass appropriate order and award reasonable and just compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life etc. and, therefore, they have requested to pass an appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal and I have gone through the evidence on record. 5.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that while awarding future loss of income the learned tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant-original claimant at Rs. 1500/- per month and applying the multiplier of 17 the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,06,000/- under the head of future loss of income. However, it is required to be noted that while awarding future loss of income the learned tribunal has not considered the future rise in income. Looking to the age of the appellant herein-original claimant i.e. 22 years at the time of the accident, 50% of Rs. 1500/- was required to be added as future rise in income. Thus for the purpose of future loss of income the income of the original claimant was required to be considered at Rs. 2250/- per month and looking to the age of the original claimant multiplier of 18 was required to be applied. Under the circumstances, the original claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 4,86,000/- under the head of future loss of income. 5.2 The learned tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of amenities for life etc. It is not in dispute that at the age of 22 years one leg of the original claimant has become useless. It is also required to be noted that even as observed by the learned tribunal because of the aforesaid the appellant herein-original claimant is required to engage attendant permanently. Under the circumstances, the appellant herein-original claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life etc.. It is also required to be noted that even as observed by the learned tribunal because of the aforesaid the appellant herein-original claimant is required to engage attendant permanently. Under the circumstances, the appellant herein-original claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life etc.. Even the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum. As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court the appellant herein-original claimant shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated herein above, the present Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 29/04/2006 in MACP No. 2144/1999 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the appellant herein-original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 7,21,000/- and 9% interest on the amount of Rs. 6,71,000/- to be paid from the date of the application till realisation as Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards future medical treatment which the original claimant shall get in advance. The balance enhanced amount as per the present judgment and order shall be deposited by the respective Insurance Companies proportionately with the learned tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit the learned tribunal to pay the same to the appellant herein-original claimant on proper identification and verification by the learned tribunal itself. The present Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.