JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant has assailed the validity of the award dated 07.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated are that an accident took place on 26.09.2003 at about 7.30 am on the Fly Over near Ranbir Higher Secondary School, Jammu in which the appellant, who was going on motor cycle, which was being driven by his uncle, was hit by the offending vehicle, namely, Tata Mobile bearing Registration No. JK02J-3651, which was being driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant received multiple injuries, which resulted in amputation of his right leg above knee level thereby rendering him permanently disable to the extent of 80%. After the accident the appellant remained admitted in Govt. Medical College, Jammu, CMC Ludhiana and Endolite Prosthetic & Orthotic Centre, New Delhi & Bangalore as well. 3. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation an account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The respondent-Insurance Company contested the claim by filing objection that the driver, at the time of accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also contested the appellant's claim whereby they denied that any such accident took place. Admittedly, the vehicle at the relevant time was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. 4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after framing the issues, recorded evidence of the parties and inter alia held that in the accident which took place on 26.09.2003 the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 80%. It was further held that the offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 3. It was also held that respondent No. 3 was holding a valid driving license. The following amount was awarded as amount of compensation :- S.No. Head Amount 1. Loss of future income Rs. 1,80,000.00 2. Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000.00 3. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,50,000.00 4. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000.00 5. It was also held that respondent No. 3 was holding a valid driving license. The following amount was awarded as amount of compensation :- S.No. Head Amount 1. Loss of future income Rs. 1,80,000.00 2. Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000.00 3. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,50,000.00 4. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000.00 5. Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant charges Rs. 1,00,000.00 6. Requirement of artificial limb for past and future Rs. 7,00,000.00 Total Rs. 14,30,000.00 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a young boy of 17 years of age and was brilliant in his studies and was intending to join the Army, however, on account of amputation of his right leg, he cannot even wish to serve the Army. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per annum and taking into account the increase in the cost of living at the time when the accident took place and when the award was passed, the income ought to have been suitably increased. Learned counsel in support of his submission placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan & Ors. v. Virendra Singh & Ors., 2013 (1) ACC 434. 6. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Insurance Company while opposing the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is already on higher side. It is further submitted that infact the Tribunal ought to have assessed the permanent disability to the extent of 50% only. It is also submitted that no case for enhancement of the amount of compensation is made out. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. 2011 ACJ 1 , Manju Devi & Anr. v. Musafir Paswan & Anr. 2005 ACJ 99, Radhakrishna & Anr. v. Gokul & Ors., 2014 AIR 548 SCW and Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2010 (10) SCC 254 and a decision of this Court in the case of United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Madan Lal & Ors. 2014 (1) JKJ 393 [HC]. 7. v. Musafir Paswan & Anr. 2005 ACJ 99, Radhakrishna & Anr. v. Gokul & Ors., 2014 AIR 548 SCW and Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2010 (10) SCC 254 and a decision of this Court in the case of United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Madan Lal & Ors. 2014 (1) JKJ 393 [HC]. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi & Anr. (supra), while dealing with the death of a boy of aged 13 years had selected the multiplier of 15 as per the 2nd Schedule and he being a non-earning person had quantified his income at Rs.15,000/- and accordingly, awarded the compensation. 9. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the decision of the Division Bench of Chhattisgarh is of no assistance to the appellant in fact situation of the case. However, admittedly the appellant, at the time of accident was a boy aged about 17 years, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have selected the multiplier of 16 instead of 15 while assessing the loss of income. Accordingly, the amount of compensation on account of loss of earning capacity is enhanced from Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.1,92,000/-. To the aforesaid extent the award dated 07.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu is modified. Enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.12,000/- shall be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of two months from today failing which it shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from today till date of deposit. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal is disposed of.