JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. Both the civil misc. appeals arise out of common judgment and award 8.2.2016 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special) Court, Communal Riots), Jaipur ('the Tribunal' for short hereinafter), hence same are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petitions against the respondents before the Tribunal claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered by them due to grievous injuries in an accident taken place on 19.12.2010 at 3.30 P.M. nearby Hari Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur due to rash and negligence of the car driver bearing No. RJ-14-CH-7507. Claimants further submitted in their claim petitions that they were going to Malviya Nagar by their Kinetic Scooter No. RJ-14-23M-7750. When they reached nearby Hari Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, then suddenly aforesaid car came with fast speed and hit the claimants Kinetic Scooter. The claimants further mentioned in their claim petitions that the driver of the car was driving the same with rash and negligent manner. In the result the claimants fell down and sustained grievous injuries. They further submitted against respondent No. 1-Mukesh Sharma and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against him. 3. The claim petition filed by the claimant Smt. Manju Lata Pareek was registered as claim petition No. 772/2015 (1602/2011) and the claim petition filed by the claimant Amar Nath Pareek was registered as 773/2015 (1601/2011). Thereafter, notices were issued to the respondents. Replies to the claim petitions were filed. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. The claimants appellants in support of their case produced three witnesses and got exhibited certain documents three witnesses and go exhibited certain documents which include the police and medical documents, whereas the opposite party did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. 4. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment and award dated 8.2.2016 in both the claim cases. Submissions of SBCMA No. 1800/2016 (Smt. Manju Lata Pareek v. Mukesh Sharma Anr.) 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant appellant Smt. Manju Lata Pareek has submitted that the impugned judgment and award dated 8.2.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal is against the facts available on record and law applicable. Submissions of SBCMA No. 1800/2016 (Smt. Manju Lata Pareek v. Mukesh Sharma Anr.) 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant appellant Smt. Manju Lata Pareek has submitted that the impugned judgment and award dated 8.2.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal is against the facts available on record and law applicable. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed gross error and illegality while deciding the issue No. 4 because it is well proved that in the aforesaid accident she sustained grievous injuries and having fracture of Zygoma and left hand and plastic surgery of face was done by Dr. Bhargava and Dr. Shailendra Sharma. She also sustained fracture of maxilla and humerus bone and having 15.15% permanent disability and she remained hospitalized for several days. Due to these injuries movements of left shoulder is restricted, faces difficulty in lifting over head objects and opening jaw. But the learned Tribunal did not award any amount for permanent disability which is contrary to provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as well as the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed gross error and illegality while awarding pity amount in the head of viz. 1. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries, 2. Loss of amenities, 3. Loss of expectation of life. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for each head, which is quite lower. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has further erred for warding the rate of interest 6% p.a. in-stead of 9% p.a. In support of his case, the-Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgments such as Smt. Neeta W/o Kadolkar and others v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhpur reported in MACD 2015 (SC) 66 wherein it has been held that the interest should be 9% p.a. Thus, rupees two lacs be enhanced on issue No. 4 in addition to the awarded amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. Submissions of SBCMA No. 1801/2016 Amar Nath Pareek v. Mukesh Sharma and Anr. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant appellant Amar Nath Pareek has submitted that the impugned judgment and award dated 8.2.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal is against the facts available on record and law applicable. Submissions of SBCMA No. 1801/2016 Amar Nath Pareek v. Mukesh Sharma and Anr. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant appellant Amar Nath Pareek has submitted that the impugned judgment and award dated 8.2.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal is against the facts available on record and law applicable. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed gross error and illegality while deciding the issue No. 4 because it is well proved that in the aforesaid accident he sustained grievous injuries and having compound fracture of left leg's ankle with shortening of ½ inch. But the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the head of future earning on account of permanent disability without adopting a system of multiplier. Counsel in support of his case placed reliance on the Judgment delivered in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010 (1) SCC 254 wherein it has been held that now recognised mode as to the proper measure of compensation is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand. But the learned Tribunal did not assess the compensation by adopting multiplier method. The learned Tribunal also failed to consider that due to aforesaid injuries, the appellant having permanent disability as 21.22% and he remained hospitalized for several days. The learned Tribunal failed to consider while deciding the issue No. 4 because, the appellant having permanent disability as 21.22% and having fractures and go operations and his left leg got shorter by ½ inch but tire learned Tribunal awarded only lump sum amount for injuries and permanent disability as Rs. 1,00,000/-. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal did not assess the age of the claimant appellant and not adopted system of multiplier, which is mandatory according to the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed gross error and illegality while awarding pity amount in the head of viz. 1. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries, 2. Loss of amenities, 3. Loss of expectation of life. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for each head, which is quite lower. 1. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries, 2. Loss of amenities, 3. Loss of expectation of life. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for each head, which is quite lower. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has further erred for awarding the rate of interest @ 6% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. In support of his case, the Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgments such as Smt. Neeta W/o Kadolkar and others v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhpur reported in MACD 2015 (SC) 66 wherein it has been held that the interest should be 9% p.a. Thus, rupees two lacs be enhanced on issue No. 4 in addition to the awarded amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. 7. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company in both the misc. appeals has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. Counsel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has applied proper multiplier and also taken into consideration the judgments which were taken into consideration the judgments which were made available before him. Thus no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me including the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. from the impugned judgment and award, it is dear that the learned Tribunal has not considered the facts of the case, as also the fact that because of the aforesaid accident the claimant Smt. Manju Lata Pareek got 15.15% permanent disability, plastic surgery of her face was done, the claimant Amar Nath Pareek who is an Advocate could not attend the Court for several months, in my considered view the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal needs to be interfered by this Court and Rs. 1,50,000/- needs to enhanced in favour of Smt. Manju Lata Pareek and Rupees Four lacs in favour of Shri Amarnath Pareek towards issue No. 4 in addition to the awarded amount. 10. Accordingly, both the misc. appeals are partly allowed and Rs. 1,50.000/- is enhanced in favour of claimant Manju Lata Pareek and Rs. 1,50,000/- needs to enhanced in favour of Smt. Manju Lata Pareek and Rupees Four lacs in favour of Shri Amarnath Pareek towards issue No. 4 in addition to the awarded amount. 10. Accordingly, both the misc. appeals are partly allowed and Rs. 1,50.000/- is enhanced in favour of claimant Manju Lata Pareek and Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of Amar Nath Pareek in addition to the awarded amount. At this stage Mr. Dinesh Sharma Counsel appearing for the respondent Company has requested that four weeks time be granted to the respondent Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount from the date of receipt a certified Copy of this order. The aforesaid prayer of the Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company seems to be genuine. Ordered accordingly. On depositing the aforesaid amount by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal within the aforementioned period, the Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount to the claimants on moving an appropriate application by them, forthwith. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified. Appeals partly allowed.