JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 27th December, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.T. Petition No. 36S/2 of 2009, titled as Mahesh versus Prince and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,98,805/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The respondents in the claim petition, i.e. the insurer, ownerinsured and driver of the offending vehicle, have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant-injured has questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the amount awarded is inadequate? The answer is in the affirmative for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 5. The claimant-injured invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he became the victim of the motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Rajinder Kumar, while driving vehicle, bearing registration No. HP01B0320, rashly and negligently, on 30th September, 2008, at about 5.00 P.M. near Shalaghat, Tehsil Arki, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the ownerinsured and the insurer of the offending vehicle on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. It is apt to record herein that the driver of the offending vehicle was proceeded against exparte. 7. The entire controversy involved in this appeal relates to adequacy of compensation, thus, there is no need to reproduce the issues framed by the Tribunal herein. 8. The Tribunal has made discussions to this effect in paras 13 to 19 of the impugned award. 9. The perusal of the record does disclose that the claimant-injured remained admitted at IGMC, Shimla, with effect from 30th September, 2008 to 20th November, 2008. The disability certificate is also on the record as Ext. PW4/A, in terms of which the claimant-injured has suffered 40% permanent disability qua left leg. 10. The claimant-injured has examined Dr. 9. The perusal of the record does disclose that the claimant-injured remained admitted at IGMC, Shimla, with effect from 30th September, 2008 to 20th November, 2008. The disability certificate is also on the record as Ext. PW4/A, in terms of which the claimant-injured has suffered 40% permanent disability qua left leg. 10. The claimant-injured has examined Dr. Sandeep Kashyap as PW4, who was one of the members of the Medical Board, which has issued the disability certificate, has specifically stated that the injury suffered by the claimant-injured, which is permanent in nature, has resulted in shortening his left leg. 11. It is beaten law of land that in an injury case, the compensation is to be awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads by making guess work. 12. My this view is fortified by the judgments made by the Apex Court in the cases titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787, and Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771. 13. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a series of cases. 14. Admittedly, the claimant-injured was ten years of age at the time of the accident and was a student. Because of the disability, he will not be able to seek appointment in armed forces or get the job of his choice after attaining the age of majority. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs. 40,000/- per annum, which is not legally and factually correct. 15. By guess work, it can be safely held that the claimant-injured would have been earning not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month even as a labourer after attaining the age of majority. The claimant-injured has suffered 40% permanent disability. Thus, it is held that he has suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 16. 15. By guess work, it can be safely held that the claimant-injured would have been earning not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month even as a labourer after attaining the age of majority. The claimant-injured has suffered 40% permanent disability. Thus, it is held that he has suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 16. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 18', which is just and appropriate in view of the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) read with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 17. Having said so, the claimant-injured has lost source of future income to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x 18 = Rs. 4,32,000/-. 18. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 42,805/- under the head 'medical expenses' and Rs. 12,000/- under the head 'transportation charges', is maintained. 19. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding compensation under the heads 'future pain and suffering' to the tune of 50,000/and 'permanent disability' to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. 20. The Apex Court in its latest decision in the case titled as Jakir Hussein versus Sabir and others, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 252 , while discussing its earlier pronouncements, observed that in injury cases, the compensation would include not only the actual expenses incurred, but the compensation has to be assessed keeping in view the struggle which the injured has to face throughout his life due to the permanent disability and the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment, loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering to undergo for the entire life etc. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 18 of the judgment herein: “11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to struggle and face different challenges as being handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to do his normal work of his job as a driver. Therefore, it is submitted that to meet the ends of justice it would be just and proper to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma caused to him and a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. ………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. and considering the suffering undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.” 21. In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the judgment (supra), I am of the considered view that the claimant-injured is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.” 21. In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the judgment (supra), I am of the considered view that the claimant-injured is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 22. Having glance of the above discussions, the claimant-injured is held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,32,000/- + 42,805/- + 12,000/- + 1,00,000/- + 1,00,000/- = Rs. 6,86,805/-. 23. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which was to be awarded as per the prevailing rates. 24. It is beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; Santosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 ; Smt. Savita versus Binder Singh & others, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & others versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 433 ; and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 434 , and discussed by this Court in a batch of FAOs, FAO No. 256 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the lead case, decided on 19.06.2015. 25. Having said so, I deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 26. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the amount of compensation is enhanced, impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of, as indicated hereinabove. 27. 26. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the amount of compensation is enhanced, impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of, as indicated hereinabove. 27. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition, the same be released in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account after proper identification. 28. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.