JUDGMENT : Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. Heard Sri Bibhuti Narayan Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3- Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. and Sri Ram Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-Owner. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the injured-claimant challenges the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 389 of 2017 awarding a sum of Rs. 4,48,218/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6%. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded. 4. The injured appellant was 47 years of age at the time of accident. He was helper/cleaner on the bus and its averred that he was getting salary of Rs. 14,000/- per month. He sustained 80% disability out of this accident. The Tribunal granted compensation considering the disability of 80% namely Rs. 4,22,400/- for future loss. 5. It is submitted by learned Counselor the appellant that the Tribunal has considered income of the immured-claimant to be Rs. 4,000/- per year month which is unjust and should be at least Rs. 14,000X12=1,68,000/- per year. It is submitted that amount under the head of future loss of income has not been granted by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the amount under the non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded are also on the lower side and requires to be enhanced in view of the following authoritative pronouncements: (i) Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar and another 2014 (104) ALR 236 (SC). (ii) Syed. Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited 2014 (104) ALR 228 (SC); (iii) V. Mekala v. M. Malathi and another 2014 (105) ALR 246, and (iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011. (v) Hari Babu v. Amrit Lal and others 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (All.) : 2019 (136) ALR 1 (Sum.). 6. (ii) Syed. Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited 2014 (104) ALR 228 (SC); (iii) V. Mekala v. M. Malathi and another 2014 (105) ALR 246, and (iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011. (v) Hari Babu v. Amrit Lal and others 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (All.) : 2019 (136) ALR 1 (Sum.). 6. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basudev Das v. Pradymna Mohanty and another 2019 ACJ 3019 , wherein it is held that even for amputation, addition of future income has to be made and therefore in case of appellant also further loss will have to be added. 7. As against this, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court as the income which is not proved cannot be granted. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that his income can be considered to be Rs. 6,000/- per month to which as the injured was 47 years at the time of accident, 25% of the income would have to be added as future loss of income of the injured in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another 2011 (84) ALR 723 (SC) : 2011 (98) AIC 251 , and Syed Sadiq and others (supra) and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand 2020 (0) ATTEL-(SC) 65725. The loss of earning capacity namely 80% as considered by the Tribunal be maintained or the same may be re-evaluated. 9. The amount granted by the Tribunal for medical expenses is also on lower side. Looking to the injuries caused to the appellant-claimant and in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand 2020 (0) AIJEL-(SC) 65725, this Court has held that he would be entitled a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 10. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellant is computed herein below: (i) Income: Rs. 6,000/- (ii) Percentage towards future prospects : 25% namely Rs. 1,500/-. (iii) Total income : Rs. 6,000 +1,500= Rs. 7,500/-. (iv) Loss of earning capacity : 60% namely Rs. 4,500/-. (v) Annual loss : Rs. 4,500 x 12 = Rs. 54,000/-. (vi) Multiplier applicable : 13. (vii) Total loss : Rs. 6,000/- (ii) Percentage towards future prospects : 25% namely Rs. 1,500/-. (iii) Total income : Rs. 6,000 +1,500= Rs. 7,500/-. (iv) Loss of earning capacity : 60% namely Rs. 4,500/-. (v) Annual loss : Rs. 4,500 x 12 = Rs. 54,000/-. (vi) Multiplier applicable : 13. (vii) Total loss : Rs. 54,000 x 13 = Rs. 7,02,000/- (viii) Medical expenses : Rs. 25,000/- (ix) Future medicine : Rs. 25,000/- + Artificial limb of Rs. 50,000/- = 75,000/-. (x) Special diet: Rs. 10,000/- (xi) Attendant charges : Rs. 1,000/- (xii) Amount under pain, shock and suffering : Rs. 1,00,000/- (xiii) Total compensation: Rs. 7,02,000 + 25,000 + 75,000 + 10,000 + 1,000 + 1,00,000= 9,13,000/-. 11. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 9% in view decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time. 12. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, I am in agreement with Sri Gour that the interest should be reviewed and. The interest should be 9% in view decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time. 13. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 14. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 15. The records and proceedings be send back to Tribunal for disbursement.