ORDER : Nandita Dubey, J. Both these appeals arise out of the common award, hence they are being decided by this common order. 2. The appellant/claimant in M.A. No. 1470/2013 has filed an application before the Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur stating that on 28.03.2012 while going towards his residence at Suhagi on the motorcycle as pillion rider he was hit from behind by Truck No. MP 33-H-1173 which was driven in rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1 and owned by non-applicant No.2, as a result he sustained grievous injuries. Report of the accident was lodged at Thana, Adhartal. It was claimed that the appellant/claimant was 32 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from running a Saloon. Due to the accident both his legs were amputated and he was deprived of his income, and on these grounds a compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,20,000/- was claimed. 3. The non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company in M.A. No. 1470/2013 and appellant in M.A. No. 2360/2013 filed its reply contending that the appellant himself was negligent as at the time of accident three persons were travelling on the motorcycle. It was further contended that the driver of the Truck had no valid licence nor the permit and the vehicle was driven against the terms and conditions of the policy and, prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The respondent No.1-driver and respondent No.2-owner remained ex parte before the Claims Tribunal. 5. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as five issues and after appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties, decided issue No.1, 2, 4 and 5 in favour of the appellant. It was held that the Insurance Company had failed to prove that the non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid licence and the vehicle was running against the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 7,44,601/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum to the appellant/claimant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No. 1470/2013 submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount on lower side. According to him, the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the fact that both the legs of the appellant were amputated and there was 100% disability. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No. 1470/2013 submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount on lower side. According to him, the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the fact that both the legs of the appellant were amputated and there was 100% disability. He has further stated that the Tribunal has considered his income as 3000/- per month only whereas it should have been reasonable as per the present state of economy. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the case of Syed Sadiq, etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. [2014 (1) T.A.C. 369 (S.C.)] and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others [2015 (1) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.)]. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in M.A. No. 2360/2013 submits that the Tribunal has taken the loss of income as 75% when there was no specific evidence of the same. He had further contended that the medical expenses were not supported by any medical prescriptions and the Tribunal has also assumed the income of the appellant as Rs. 3000/- per month which is wrong and prayed that the amount awarded as compensation be reduced. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, I am of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant (M.A. No. 1470/2013) deserves to be allowed. 9. It is observed that Ex.P/9, P/10 and P/11, clearly reflects that the appellant/ claimant was admitted in the hospital after the accident and he suffered traumatic amputation of right foot and crush injury on left foot and advised amputation of his both legs. Ex.P/12 to P/78 and P/82 to P/90 are the prescriptions and medical bills filed by him. Ex. P/79 reflects that the appellant/claimant has suffered 90% disability due to the amputation. Discharge Ticket Ex.P/81 shows that both the legs of the appellant have been amputated. 10. In the case of Syed Sadiq (supra) the Supreme Court while considering the case of an injured vegetable vendor whose right leg was amputated, has held that considering the present state of economy and the rising prices reasonable income of Rs. 6,500/- per month can be fixed and as the claimant was self employed and was aged 24 years, 50% increase allowed towards future prospects and income. 6,500/- per month can be fixed and as the claimant was self employed and was aged 24 years, 50% increase allowed towards future prospects and income. In the case of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi (supra) the Supreme Court was of the view that the Courts/Tribunal are to pass award determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by legal standards. 11. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in aforesaid cases. 12. Considering that the appellant/claimant was only 32 years of age and the fact that both his legs have been amputated and he would further no longer be able to continue his occupation, the amount is enhanced by Rs. 1,90,000/- in lump sum in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal thereby making the total compensation Rs. 9,34,601/- (Rs. 7,44,601/- + Rs. 1,90,000/-) which shall be payable within a period of 30 days along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, failing which interest @ 9% shall be leviable. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the claimant (M.A. No. 1470/2013) succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company (M.A. No. 2360/2013) is dismissed. 14. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.