JUDGMENT : Z.K. SAIYED, J. This First Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act praying for modifying the judgment and order dated 7.5.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi), Mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 617 of 2010. He has prayed to award Rs. 25,000/- under the head of attendant and diet instead of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 25,000/- under the head of actual loss of income instead of Rs. 6000/- and Rs. 50,000/- under the head of loss of enjoyment, and has prayed for awarding compensation by applying multiplier of 14. 2. It is the case of the appellant that on 13.6.2009 the appellant alongwith his relative went for social work to Ahmedabad on Motor Cycle No. GJ 2 AK 3241. After completing the social work at Ahmedabad they were going from Chhatral to Kadi for (darshan) praying Meldi Mata. At that time, one Sureshbhai was driving motorcycle and at 7:17 p.m in the evening they were passing from Vardai-ni-Computer Weighing Scale, opp. Swastik Ceramic Factory, at that time, he drove motorcycle on wrong side and dashed the pedestrian walking on the road. The appellant - Prajapati Bhikhabhai Devkarandas was sitting as pillion rider on the motorcycle and he also fell down on the road and sustained injury on the knee on the left leg and, therefore, he took treatment at Dr. G.K Patel Hospital, Mehsana. 3. The appellant filed M.A.C.P No. 617 of 2010 which was disposed of by awarding the sum as indicated in the award. 4. Heard Mr. A.V Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2. 5. Mr. A.V Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is improper, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law. He has submitted to consider annual income of appellant at Rs. 60,000/- for 20% disability. He has submitted to consider annual loss of Rs. 12,000/-. Therefore total amount comes to Rs. 1,68,000/-, hence he has prayed for enhancement of Rs. 84,000/- of compensation with 9% interest. He has submitted to consider annual income of appellant at Rs. 60,000/- for 20% disability. He has submitted to consider annual loss of Rs. 12,000/-. Therefore total amount comes to Rs. 1,68,000/-, hence he has prayed for enhancement of Rs. 84,000/- of compensation with 9% interest. Lastly, he has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the multiplier of 14 as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 when sufficient evidence regarding age was produced on record. He, therefore, submitted that the award requires to be modified as prayed for. 6. Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 submitted that the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mehsana, is just and proper and does not require any interference. He submitted that the Tribunal has correctly taken the income and has also applied the correct multiplier and the same requires no interference. 7. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length and in great detail. I have perused the averments made in the memo of appeal. Before the Tribunal the appellant produced sufficient evidence regarding his age which is just and proper. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the claimant. The multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. Hence this Court is inclined to award multiplier of 14 as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Keeping that in mind, this Court is of the view that multiplier of 14 is just and proper. Considering the annual income of appellant at Rs. 60,000/- with disability of 20% and annual loss of Rs. 12,000/- with multiplier of 14 it comes to Rs. 168,000/-, hence there is enhancement of Rs. 84,000/-. Thus the award deserves to be modified. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhancement of Rs. 84,000/- with interest of 9% within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 9. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.