JUDGMENT Dinesh Chandra Somanim, J. - The instant appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation, has been preferred by the claimant/appellant against the judgment and award dated 19.08.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred as "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No.131/2009 titled as Yogendra Singh Chaudhary v. Tej Ram & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition directing the non-claimant/respondent No.2 to 4 to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally and awarded compensation of Rs. 9,25,120/- to the claimant/appellant, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, provided the amount of compensation is deposited within two months, failing which, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 09.01.2009, the claimant/appellant alongwith his brother, was going on motorcycle from village Jhalra to Kishangarh. Suddenly a Tractor bearing No.RJ-21-R-1264 came from opposite direction in wrong side and hit the motorcycle. The Tractor was driven by non-claimant No.1 Tej Ram in rash and negligent manner. As a result thereof, the claimant/appellant sustained grievous injuries on the left leg and on other parts of the body. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Kishangarh for the said accident. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against non-claimant No.1 Tej Ram in competent Court of law. 3. The claimant/appellant filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 5,19,45,000/-, stating therein that at the time of accident, the claimant/appellant was 23 years aged and he was working as Under Water Driver in Mauritius, and he was getting salary of 75 U.S. Dollars per day which comes to Rs. 1,12,500/- per month. It is also stated that due to accident, the claimant/appellant sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in amputation of left leg above the knee. The claimant/appellant sustained injuries on hand, head and eye also. On account of injuries, he sustained 85.33% permanent disability. The claimant/appellant incurred huge amount in his treatment and remained admit in several hospitals for long time. It is also stated that due to amputation of his left leg, the claimant/appellant suffered 100% loss of earning capacity as he is not able to do any work of Under Water Driver, which he was doing prior to the accident. 4. The claimant/appellant incurred huge amount in his treatment and remained admit in several hospitals for long time. It is also stated that due to amputation of his left leg, the claimant/appellant suffered 100% loss of earning capacity as he is not able to do any work of Under Water Driver, which he was doing prior to the accident. 4. The non-claimant No.1 to 3 filed joint reply admitting fact of the accident, registration number of the Tractor involved in the accident, and names of driver, owner and insurer of the Tractor, as stated in the claim petition. The non-claimants denied other material averments of the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the petition against them. 5. The non-claimant/Insurance Company has filed separate reply and opposed the claim petition denying all the material averments of the claim petition. It is also stated that driver of the Tractor was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. 7. In support of the claim petition, claimant examined himself as AW-1 and exhibited as many as 72 documents. Non-claimant/ respondents examined NAW-1 Ashok Mehta, NAW-2 Dharmendra and exhibited as many as nine documents. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal has decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimant/appellant and against the non-claimants, in the manner that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by non-claimant No.1 and the claimant sustained injuries in the accident. Learned Tribunal decided Issue No.2 against the non-claimant/ Insurance Company in the manner that driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, was having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Issue No.3 and 4 have been decided in favour of the claimant/appellant and against the non-claimants No.2 to 4 in the manner that the claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 9,25,120/- alongwith interest as mentioned hereinabove. 9. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant Mr. 9,25,120/- alongwith interest as mentioned hereinabove. 9. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta submits that the claimant has proved that he was working as Under Water Driver in M/S. Rana Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and he was getting salary 75 U.S. Dollars per day, which is equal to Rs. 1,12,500/- per month, even then the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the compensation amount taking income of the claimant to be Rs. 5,000/- per month only. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in assessing loss of earning capacity of the claimant/appellant to be 85.33% only, whereas, the claimant/appellant suffered 100% loss of earning capacity due to amputation of left leg above the knee. Looking to the permanent disability suffered by the claimant/appellant, it can safely be inferred that he cannot do any work of earning livelihood, after the accident. Therefore, finding of learned Tribunal with regard to loss of earning capacity ought to have been modified accordingly. Learned counsel also submits that learned Tribunal has further erred in not awarding compensation towards future prospects, whereas, Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 (2) R.A.R. 147 (SC) and in Jagdish v. Mohan and Ors. reported in AIR 2018 SC 1347 , has held that benefit of future prospects be considered in all the claim petitions, while awarding compensation to the victims. Learned counsel also submits that learned Tribunal has found that age of the claimant/appellant was about 24 years 10 months at the time of the accident, thus, he comes in the age group of 21-25 years. Therefore, the claimant/appellant is entitled for an addition of 40% of the established income towards future prospects. 12. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal has further erred in applying multiplier of 17 only, while calculating the amount of compensation. Because age group of the claimant/appellant at the time of the accident, was 21-25 years, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied, as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Because age group of the claimant/appellant at the time of the accident, was 21-25 years, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied, as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra). 13. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant further submits that learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs. 2,000/- only towards physical and mental pain, and extra nourishment. Learned Tribunal did not award any compensation for the services of attendants during hospitalisation and thereafter. The claimant/appellant has claimed Rs. 1,000,000/- for physical and mental pain due to permanent disability and other injuries sustained in the accident, Rs. 4,00,000/- towards loss of income of the attendants during hospitalisation of the claimant and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards extra nourishment, which cannot said to be on higher side and prayed to modify the award accordingly. 14. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant further submits that learned Tribunal has further erred in awarding interest @ 6% per annum only, whereas, it is consistent view of Hon'ble the Apex Court, this High Court and other High Courts that interest @ 9% per annum should have been awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent No.4/Insurance Company Mr. Rizwan Ahmed opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the claimant/appellant, which does not require interference by this Hon'ble Court. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the claimant/appellant did not produce any document with regard to his academic qualification so also of his employment, as stated in the claim petition. Ex.65 produced by the claimant/appellant, is not issued by the so called employer of the claimant/appellant as mentioned in para 5 of the claim petition. The claimant/appellant could not prove Ex.65 by producing the person alleged to have issued the certificate. Learned counsel also submits that according to claimant/appellant, he worked in Corrosion Protection Project of Afcons Infrastructure Limited at Port Louis, Mauritius from 03.03.2008 to 25.11.2008. The accident occurred on 09.01.2009. The claimant/appellant did not produce any evidence as to what was he doing after 25.11.2008 and before 03.03.2008. Learned counsel also submits that according to claimant/appellant, he worked in Corrosion Protection Project of Afcons Infrastructure Limited at Port Louis, Mauritius from 03.03.2008 to 25.11.2008. The accident occurred on 09.01.2009. The claimant/appellant did not produce any evidence as to what was he doing after 25.11.2008 and before 03.03.2008. Thus the learned Tribunal has rightly considered income of the claimant/appellant to be Rs. 5,000/- per month. Learned counsel also submits that the claimant/appellant did not produce his passport or visa to prove the journey to Mauritius as mentioned in Ex.65. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the case of Jagdish v. Mohan & Ors. (supra) is distinguishable and does not apply in this case. The prayer is to dismiss the appeal being devoid of substance. 18. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 19. There is no dispute with regard to age of the claimant/appellant to be 24 years 10 months 7 days at the time of the accident. Thus, the claimant/appellant comes under the age group of 21-25 years. 20. The claimant/appellant did not produce any document with regard to his employment with M/s Rana Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd. Even he did not produce any document with regard to his academic qualification. Claimant/appellant-Yogendra Singh (PW-1) has deposed that he was working as Under Water Driver in Corrosion Protection Project of Afcons Infrastructure Limited at Port Louis in Mauritius and was getting saraly 75 U.S. Dollars per day which is equal to Rs. 1,12.500/- per month, whereas he pleaded in the claim petition that he is employed with M/s Rana Offshore Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. With regard to income, the claimant produced a certificate issued by Afcons Infrastructure Limited and marked as Ex.65. According to Ex.65, the claimant worked in Corrosion Protection Project of Afcons Infrastructure Limited at Port Louis, Maurtitius from 03.03.2008 to 25.11.2008. The accident occurred on 09.01.2009. The claimant has not produced any evidence about what he was doing before 03.03.2008 and after 25.11.2008 till the accident. The claimant/appellant has not produced in evidence either the person who issued Ex.65 or any official of his employer or of Afcons Infrastructure Limited. The claimant neither made any efforts to summon such person to give evidence, nor offered any explanation for not examining the concerned person to prove Ex.65. The claimant/appellant has not produced in evidence either the person who issued Ex.65 or any official of his employer or of Afcons Infrastructure Limited. The claimant neither made any efforts to summon such person to give evidence, nor offered any explanation for not examining the concerned person to prove Ex.65. The claimant did not produce his appointment letter or pass-book of his Bank A/c to prove his income as stated by him. Even he did not produce his passport or visa documents to prove the journey to Mauritius as mentioned in Ex.65. In view of the above, the claimant has failed to prove his income to be 75 U.S. Dollars per day or Rs. 1,12,500/- per month. The learned Tribunal has assessed income of the claimant to be Rs. 5,000/- per month. We find no error in the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to income of the claimant/appellant, thus it does not call for any interference in appeal. 21. There is no dispute with regard to permanent disability of the claimant/appellant suffered by him due to injuries sustained in the accident. The claimant/appellant produced permanent disability certificate Ex.12 issued by Department of Orthopaedics, J.L.N. Medical College & Hospital, Ajmer (Raj). According to Ex.12, the total values of permanent physical impairment of the claimant/appellant is 85.33% due to amputation of left leg above the knee. According to claimant/appellant, he was Under Water Driver, and has attended several training programmes and courses of Under Water Driving. After amputation of left leg above the knee, he cannot perform his work of Under Water Driving, therefore, he has suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the claimant/appellant can earn his livelihood with the help of artificial limb, therefore, it cannot be said that he suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. 23. Learned Tribunal has assessed loss of earning capacity to be 85.33%. There is no evidence on record to show that the claimant cannot do any kind of work to earn livelihood. Therefore, we find no error in the finding of the learned Tribunal that due to injuries and permanent disability, the claimant/appellant has suffered 85.33% loss of earning capacity. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard, does not call for any interference by this Court. 24. Therefore, we find no error in the finding of the learned Tribunal that due to injuries and permanent disability, the claimant/appellant has suffered 85.33% loss of earning capacity. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard, does not call for any interference by this Court. 24. With regard to awarding compensation towards future prospects, reference of the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and Jagdish v. Mohan & Ors. (supra) has been given. Para 10 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish v. Mohan & Ors. (supra) is quoted hereunder. "10. In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs. 2400/- towards loss of future prospects." 25. It is not proved that the claimant had a permanent job. Even then, applying the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Jagdish (supra), an addition of 40% of the established income should be made, where the age of the victim is below 40 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the claimant/appellant is entitled for an enhancement of Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of future prospects. Taking note of loss of earning capacity to be 85.33%, the loss of income comes to Rs. 71,677/- per annum [85.33% of Rs. 7,000/- ( Rs. 5,000/-+Rs.2,000/-) x 12]. 26. Looking to age group of the claimant/appellant to be 21-25 years, appropriate multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 17. Thus, total loss of income comes to Rs. 12,90,186/- ( Rs. 71,677/- x 18). 27. Learned Tribunal has further erred in awarding a meager amount of Rs. 2,000/- for two simple injuries, Rs. 10,000/- for two grievous injuries and Rs. 2,000/- towards physical and mental pain & extra nourishment. Thus, total loss of income comes to Rs. 12,90,186/- ( Rs. 71,677/- x 18). 27. Learned Tribunal has further erred in awarding a meager amount of Rs. 2,000/- for two simple injuries, Rs. 10,000/- for two grievous injuries and Rs. 2,000/- towards physical and mental pain & extra nourishment. With regard to awarding compensation towards physical & mental pain, extra nourishment and attendant's expenses, learned counsel for the claimant/appelant gave reference of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish (supra). Para No.11 of the judgment is relevant in this case, which is quoted hereunder :- "11. In making the computation in the present case, the court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing - at least in the facts of this case - can restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity. 28. The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat or to attend to a visit to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In this background, it would be a denial of justice to compute the disability at 90 per cent. The disability is indeed total. Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In the circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss of income, including future prospects, would be Rs. 18,14,400/-. In addition to this amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of pain, suffering and loss of amenities. In the circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss of income, including future prospects, would be Rs. 18,14,400/-. In addition to this amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses (Rs.98,908/-); for extra nourishment (Rs.25,000/-) and for attendant's expenses (Rs. 1 lakh) is maintained. The Tribunal has declined to award any amount towards future treatment. The appellant should be allowed an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs towards future medical expenses. The appellant is thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 25,38,308/- by way of compensation. The appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer, owner and driver jointly and severally which is affirmed. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from today and shall be paid over to the appellant upon proper identification." 29. In view of the above, in addition to the total loss of income, following amounts ought to have been awarded in different heads to the claimant/appellant:- (a) for pain, suffering and loss of amenities : Rs.2,00,000/- (b) for extra nourishment : Rs.25,000/- (c) for attendant's expenses : Rs.1,00,000/- 30. The claimant/appellant has produced bills Ex.16 to Ex.64 relating to purchase of medicines and investigations. The total amount of the bills is Rs. 26,620/-. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 26,620/- to the claimant/appellant for medical expenses. The finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard does not call for interference in appeal. 31. It is not disputed that after the accident, the claimant/appellant was admitted in J.L.N. Medical College and Hospital, Ajmer on 09.01.2009, where he was operated on 10.01.2009, and was discharged from the hospital on 21.01.2009. Thereafter, the claimant/appellant was admitted in Rathi Hospital, Kishangarh on 21.01.2009 and was discharged on 05.02.2009. Thus, the claimant/appellant remain hospitalised for 29 days in Ajmer and Kishangarh, and during this period he would have incurred other expenses also, instead of expenses towards medicines and investigations. In this head, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 14,500/- only, which prima facie appears to be on lower side. Thus, the claimant/appellant remain hospitalised for 29 days in Ajmer and Kishangarh, and during this period he would have incurred other expenses also, instead of expenses towards medicines and investigations. In this head, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 14,500/- only, which prima facie appears to be on lower side. Therefore, I am inclined to award Rs. 29,000/- to the claimant/appellant for other miscellaneous expenses during hospitalisation. 32. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest on compensation amount @ 6% per annum, provided the awarded amount is deposited within two months, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. Hon'ble Supreme court in Kansingh & Anr v. Tukaram & Ors reported in 2015(1) TAC 337 (SC) and Smt. Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur reported in 2015 (1) RAR (SC) 52, has held that interest @ 9% per annum ought to have been awarded on compensation amount. In Jagdish v. Mohan (supra) also, Apex Court awarded interest @ 9% per annum. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent submits that entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal has already been deposited with the tribunal, therefore interest @ 9% per annum may be awarded only on enhanced amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant did not oppose the contention of learned counsel for the respondent, rather he is also agreed to that. Thus we accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondent. 33. In view of the discussions made above, the total compensation has to be assessed under the various heads as follows:- Sr. No. Heads Calculations A Loss of Income (i) Income per month Rs.5000/- (ii) 40% of above to be added as future prospects Rs.5,000/-+ Rs.2,000/-= Rs. 7,000/- per month (iii) Loss of earning capacity 85.33% (iv) Loss of income per annum [85.33% of Rs. 7,000/- X 12]= Rs. 71,677/- per annum (v) Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied [ Rs.71,677/-x18] = Rs. 12,90,186/- B Medical Expenses Rs.26,620/- C Pain,suffering and loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/- D Extra nourishment Rs.25,000/- E Attendant's expenses Rs.1,00,000/- F Miscellaneous expenses during hospitalisation Rs.29,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.16,70,806/- 34. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and, impugned judgment and award dated 19.08.2011 is modified to the extent that the claimant/appellant is entitled to receive Rs. 16,70,806/- by way of compensation, instead of Rs. 9,25,120/-as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and, impugned judgment and award dated 19.08.2011 is modified to the extent that the claimant/appellant is entitled to receive Rs. 16,70,806/- by way of compensation, instead of Rs. 9,25,120/-as awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is further ordered that the non-claimant/ respondents No.2 to 4 shall deposit the aforesaid amount jointly and severally, with the learned Tribunal after deducting the amount already paid to the claimant/appellant, if any, within eight weeks from receipt of copy of this judgment. The claimant/appellant is also entitled to receive interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment, only on the amount of enhanced compensation. Other terms of the impugned award shall remain the same. No costs.