JUDGMENT : (S.G. Dige, J.) : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/orig. claimant (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimant’) for enhancement of compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : On 04.05.2002 at 1.00 pm the claimant Nitin was proceeding to Nandi Stop Latur from Ashok Hotel to attend tuition class by riding on a motor cycle owned by his brother Sachin-opponent no.4. He was proceeding from flyover bridge situated at Shivaji Chowk Latur and he was negotiating 900 angle turn towards Southern side by riding on the motorbike. At that time, the jeep bearing registration No.MH-24-C-2045 driven by opponent no.1-Sunil came from opposite direction in high speed. The opponent no.1 was driving it in rash and negligent manner and in high speed. All of sudden the jeep dashed against the motorbike driven by the claimant. Due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries. He was immediately shifted to the Appi Accident Hospital, Latur. He undergone three operations therein. The nailing has been made to his fracture bones. The crime was registered against the driver of Jeep. 3. The Claim Petition was filed by the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Latur for getting compensation (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal has considered 75% negligence of the Jeep driver and 25% negligence of the claimant and has awarded Rs.2,02,575/-. Against the said judgment and order this Appeal for enhancement. 4. It is contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, the claimant was hospitalized for a period of 25 days and thereafter, he had visited hospital for follow up treatment for six months, but Tribunal has not considered this fact and has awarded lesser compensation. The claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability. The age of the claimant was 19 years at the time of accident. Considering the age of the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have granted proper compensation, but Tribunal has not granted just and proper compensation. The Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. No multiplier is applied. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that at the time of accident the claimant was clever student studying in 12th standard in Science faculty. He was persuading study hard so as to get admission in the medical college, but due to accident he was compelled to leave his studies and consequently, it affected his career adversely. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that at the time of accident the claimant was clever student studying in 12th standard in Science faculty. He was persuading study hard so as to get admission in the medical college, but due to accident he was compelled to leave his studies and consequently, it affected his career adversely. Due to the accidental injuries, he is permanently disabled. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments: 1. Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 413. 2. M. R. Krishna Murthi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2020) 15 Supreme Court Cases 493. 6. It is contention of the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 5 that, accident was occurred on flyover bridge. There was negligence of claimant itself. In cross-examination of the claimant he admitted that, after impact he felt on the bonnet of the said Jeep, which reveals and indicates that claimant was driving motorcycle in rash and negligent manner. The place of the accident was in the middle of the road. From the evidence of Doctor, it revealed that the claimant has not sustained functional disability. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper. 7. I have heard all the learned counsel. 8. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and whether future income of the claimant is not properly considered. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, claimant was clever student and he was persuading study hard so as to get admission in the medical college, but due to the accident he was compelled to leave his studies and consequently it affected his career adversely. The claimant-Nitin Sontakke, at Exhibit-44 has stated that the said accident was occurred due to sole negligence of Jeep driver. Due to the said accident, he sustained permanent disability and at present he could not able to walk long distance and stand for long time. Due to the injuries caused to him, he could not able to play outdoor games. He develops pain in his leg and knees. In cross-examination, he admitted that he used to attend classes and college after the accident. Due to the injuries caused to him, he could not able to play outdoor games. He develops pain in his leg and knees. In cross-examination, he admitted that he used to attend classes and college after the accident. From the evidence of Doctors it has come on record that the claimant sustained 25% permanent disability. The Tribunal has not considered the future income of the claimant. The claimant was aspiring to go to medical college. Due to accident he could not do that. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of M. R. Krishna Murthi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others (supra) has held as under: “As can be seen from the above, loss of future earning is assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month or Rs.24,000/- per annum. In the process, the MACT has not considered future prospects having regard to the relevant facts pointed out above which should have been taken into consideration. At the same time, it is the functional disability which has to be kept in mind. Though, not very seriously, the functional capacity has been impaired because of the disability suffered by the appellant as the appellant cannot run around like other young advocates of his age. Going by the overall circumstances, we are of the opinion that in case of the appellant, loss of future earning can be fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum on which multiplier of 18 is to be applied. Calculated in this manner, the loss future earning comes to Rs.10,80,000/-. The appellant, thus, would be paid another sum of Rs.6,54,000/- under this head along with interest as awarded by the Court below. We may place on record the statement of Mr. Arun Mohan that the appellant has volunteered to give this amount to any Government or public charitable organisation working towards road safety. We appreciate this gesture of the appellant. We leave it to the appellant to donate the amount to any particular organisation of his choice. Alternatively, it can also be given for MAMC project by the appellant. Choice would entirely be that the appellant.” 9. The ratio laid down in the above case is squarely applicable to the present case, as in the above case the claimant was 18 years of age student and in the present case the claimant was 20 years of age at the time of accident. Choice would entirely be that the appellant.” 9. The ratio laid down in the above case is squarely applicable to the present case, as in the above case the claimant was 18 years of age student and in the present case the claimant was 20 years of age at the time of accident. Hence, I am considering the future income of Rs.5000/- per month as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It comes to Rs.5000 X 12 = Rs.60,000/- per annum. At the time of accident claimant was 20 years old. Hence, in view of the judgment in a case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 18 is proper multiplier i.e. Rs.60,000 X 18 = Rs.10,80,000/-. 10. The Tribunal has considered 25% contributory negligence of the claimant on the basis of spot panchanama Exhibit-82. The Tribunal has observed that, the place of accident is in middle of the road. Hence, Tribunal has considered 25% contributory negligence of the claimant. In my view, the Tribunal has failed to consider the facts mentioned in Exhibit-82 properly. Admittedly accident was occurred on 900 curve road. The claimant was going from his left side, whereas Jeep was coming from opposite direction. While taking turn on 900 curve road by left side a vehicle rider can go slightly towards middle side of road. If any vehicle comes from opposite direction it should be on extreme left side of road and not towards middle of the road. From spot panchanama Exhibit- 82, it appears that, offending Jeep was standing in the middle of the road. This Exhibit-82 also shows that, the Jeep driver applied brakes and there were marks upto 8 feet behind the place of accident. It shows that, Jeep was in very high and excessive speed. Nowhere it has come on record that, the claimant’s motorcycle was in high speed. Had it been on high speed, the claimant could have suffered fatal injuries. Exhibit-82 clearly indicates that, there was sole negligence of the Jeep driver. More over, respondents have not examined offending Jeep driver to prove that there was contributory negligence of the claimant. Hence, I am setting aside the observation of the Tribunal that, there was 25% contributory negligence of the claimant and hold that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the Jeep driver. More over, respondents have not examined offending Jeep driver to prove that there was contributory negligence of the claimant. Hence, I am setting aside the observation of the Tribunal that, there was 25% contributory negligence of the claimant and hold that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the Jeep driver. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads. In my view, those are proper. Hence, I am not interfering it except loss of career and future income as observed earlier. I am deducting Rs.75,000/- awarded for 25% disability as I have considered compensation for loss of career and future income. 11. Considering above calculations the claimant is entitled for the following compensation: 1. Loss of career and future income Rs.5000 p.m. x 12 = 60,000/- P.A. Multiplier of 18 is applied. Rs.60,000 x 18 = 10,80,000/- 2. Cost of Treatment and Medication Rs.45,100/- 3. Expenses by relatives for taking care Rs.15,000/- 4. Special Food and Diet Rs.15,000/- 5. Future Treatment Rs.20,000/- 6. Pain and Mental Agony Rs.25,000/- 7. Total Rs.12,00,100/- 8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,02,575/- 9. The appellant is entitled for enhanced amount Rs.9,97,525/- (i.e. Rs.12,00,100- Rs.2,02,575) ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The Appellant is entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.9,97,525/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till its realization. (iii) The respondents shall deposit the enhanced amount before this Court within six weeks. (iv) The Appellant is entitled to withdraw the deposited amount. (v) Deficit Court fees, if any, be paid. (vi) Appeal is disposed of in above terms.