JUDGMENT : DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal from the order has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to “Act 1988”) by appellant-Nikita Raghuvanshi being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 14.02.2022 passed by VIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), Bhopal in Claim Petition No. 1690/2019 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,29,526/- with interest of 6% per annum to the injured from the date of application till the date of payment against the respondent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short “MACT”). 3. The brief facts are that the claim petition was filed with the averments that on 27.01.2019 at about 8:00 pm, when the injured was eating Nodules or Chowmean near Baba Nagar Sanchi Point at that time a Car bearing No. MP-04 TA-8672 came from Bansal Hospital driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and hit the injured/claimant, due to which, she sustained serious injuries and immediately she was shifted to the Bhopal Fracture Hospital, admitted for treatment. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said car bearing No. MP-04 TA-8672 and based on the complaint lodged by Ritesh Raghuvanshi, the Chunabhatti Police registered a case in Crime No. 31/2019 for the offences Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court at Bhopal against accused/driver (respondent no. 1) for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and the Doctor found that the injured was sustained serious fractures on left leg, left hip, waist, head and all over the body and she was operated femur bone and hip joint and four screws and plats were inserted during the treatment, before the accident claimant was working as a salesman in Shreeram Traders getting Rs. 15,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, she lost her job and she became permanent disabled. She is not able to do work and she faces much inconvenience due to injuries on her waist and hip and the claimant loose her memory and became weak. 4. 15,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, she lost her job and she became permanent disabled. She is not able to do work and she faces much inconvenience due to injuries on her waist and hip and the claimant loose her memory and became weak. 4. The claimant Nikita Raghuvanshi filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 15,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident. 5. The first and second respondents have not contested the matter. 6. The respondent no. 3, i.e. National Insurance Company filed a written statement and contended that the allegations made in the application were false. It is further averred that first respondent did not have any valid or effective driving license at the time of the accident. The vehicle which caused the accident was being driven by its driver in violation of Insurance Policy, and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues dated 30.01.2021: “(i) Whether on 27.01.2019 at about 8:00 pm, the non-applicant no. 1 drove the Car bearing No. MP-04 TA 8672 in a rash and neglignely and dashed the appellant herein and caused injuries? (ii) Whether the appellant suffered serious injuries on account of the said accident? (iii) Whether the appellant was permanently disabled due to the said accident? (iv) Whether the appellant is entitled for compensation. If yes, then from whom and how much? (v) Whether the vehicle was being driven by its driver in violation of the terms of the insurance policy? (vi) Aid and expenditure?” 8. In order to establish her claim, at the time of trial before the Tribunal, PW-1 (injured) and PW-2 (Doctor) were examined, and exhibits Ex.P-1 to P-115(C) were marked on behalf of the claimant. No evidence was led, and no document was marked on behalf of the respondent no. 3/Insurance Company. 9. The learned Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, passed an award for a sum of Rs. 2,29,526/- as compensation, the break up details of compensation awarding by the learned Tribunal are tabulation under: S. No. Head of Compensation Amount of compensation awarded 1. Medical Expenditure Rs. 1,44,526/- 2. Transportation, Special Diet and attandant charges etc. Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of earning due to grievous injuries Rs. 60,000/- 4. Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- 5. Future inconvenience Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. Medical Expenditure Rs. 1,44,526/- 2. Transportation, Special Diet and attandant charges etc. Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of earning due to grievous injuries Rs. 60,000/- 4. Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- 5. Future inconvenience Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 2,29,526/- 10. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal for seeking enhancement of compensation. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Tribunal committed error in passing impugned award for meager amount without looking into the material and evidence on record. Further would submit that the learned Tribunal erred in not taking the disability at 40% or 50% by awarding amount for loss of future earnings, further would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded suitable compensation for medical expenses incurred by the claimant for treatment Ex.P/17 to P/82, further would submit that learned Tribunal has not awarded the amount under conventional heads by applying the principles laid down in the Apex Court’s judgments. Further would submit that the appellant/claimant sustained 40% to 50% disability, the future loss of earnings not awarded by the Tribunal. Further would submit that the appellant/claimant has taken treatment in Bhopal Fracture Hospital and spent huge amount for treatment nearly Rs. 3,00,000/- which is supported by a bunch of bills in the name of the claimant and medical expenses need to be enhanced. In fact the appellant/claimant who was working as salesman is not supposed to be that much of meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use, in fact she spent more amount but the learned Tribunal did not award the amount spent by her towards treatment under the bills. Therefore, figures and multipliers were not applied by the learned Tribunal which warrants interference by this Court for enhancement of compensation by modifying the award. 12. The learned standing counsel for the third respondent/Insurance Company has opposed this appeal and contended that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity which needs no interference by this Court, further submit that on proper appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a just and fair compensation to the appellant. Further would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is justified which called for no interference in the appeal, therefore, the appeal lacks of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Further would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is justified which called for no interference in the appeal, therefore, the appeal lacks of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. In view of the above rival arguments, the points for determination in this appeal are as under: (i) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? (ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal by following the principles of law or needs any interference? 14. Point No. 1 and 2: Considering the submissions of the learned counsels, perused and assessed the entire evidence on record including the exhibited documents. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Tribunal has framed issue no. 1, as to whether, the accident in question occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP-04-TA-8672, driven by its driver, to which, the learned Tribunal after considering the oral evidence coupled with the documents, gave a finding on issue no. 1 mentioned in para-13 of the judgment that the non-applicant no. 1 (driver) drove the offending vehicle (car) bearing No. MP-04-TA-8672 in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, as a result, the claimant got serious injuries and a criminal case was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle as per Ex.P/1 (charge-sheet). Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (car) bearing No. MP- 04- TA-8672, by its driver (first respondent), due to which, the claimant sustained severe injuries. 15. The learned Tribunal has not assessed the monthly income of the injured by following the Apex Court judgment. In the instant case, the appellant/injured took a plea before the learned Tribunal that she was working as Salesman in Shreeram Traders and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month and received another appointment letter dated 10.02.2019 appointing her as Sales Executive Officer (SEO) offering salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month from Expert 18 Web Solution, she could not join due to the accident, due to which, the claimant become completely unemployed. In the instant case, except Ex.P/109 and her pleadings, she was not examine any of them to prove that she was paid Rs. 20,000/- per month from Expert 18 Web Solution, she could not join due to the accident, due to which, the claimant become completely unemployed. In the instant case, except Ex.P/109 and her pleadings, she was not examine any of them to prove that she was paid Rs. 15,000/- per month by Shreeram Traders. In absence of any material evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant injured is treated as sales worker and her monthly income as on the date of the accident has to be taken into consideration by following the judgment below. 16. The law in respect of notional income is well settled by the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court: The law in respect of notional income is well settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance, (2011) 13 SCC 236 and Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra) has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 @ Rs. 4,500/- per month. In Syed Sadiq (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a vegetable vendor in the year 2006 @ Rs. 6,500/- per month. This Court in Soman vs. Jinesh James and others, ILR 2020 (3) Kerala 1003 has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2010 at Rs. 7,500/- per month. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized the principle that there would be incremental enhancement in the case of even self-employed individuals in the unorganized sector [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and with respect to an unspecified job of a worker considering the increase in cost of living and economic advancements over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a worker would be eligible for incremental addition of at least Rs. 500/- in every subsequent year. 18. In the light of the above judgments cited (supra), the notional income of the worker has been fixed in 2010 at Rs. 7,500/- per month. 500/- in every subsequent year. 18. In the light of the above judgments cited (supra), the notional income of the worker has been fixed in 2010 at Rs. 7,500/- per month. Following the parameters laid down in the above judgments (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that by the date of accident, the notional income of the injured can be safely assumed that even a worker would be eligible for the incremental addition of at least Rs. 500/- in every subsequent year. In such circumstances, the notional income of the worker in the year 2010 Rs. 7,500/- and it can be safely assumed that even a worker would be eligible for incremental additional of at least Rs. 500/- in every subsequent year i.e. 2011 to 2019 Rs. 4,500/-, therefore, the notional income of the injured can safely be fixed (Rs. 7,500/- +Rs. 4,500/-) at Rs. 12,000/- per month as in the year of accident 2019. There was no reason for the learned Tribunal for not considering the monthly income while determining for grant of compensation for loss of earnings in terms of the Apex Court Judgment. 19. It is a well settled principle that while determining the compensation payable to appellant/claimant in the claim filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward Vs. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563. Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (Page 446) wherein, it was held as follows: “When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration.” 20. Further, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 389 wherein, at Para No. 40, it was held as follows: “40. Further, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 389 wherein, at Para No. 40, it was held as follows: “40. It is well settled principle that in granting compensation for personal injury, injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering (2) for loss of amenities, (3) shortened expectation of life, if any, (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both and (5) medical treatment and other special damages.......” 21. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon and another, (2022) 8 SCC 489 wherein, at Para Nos.11, 12 and 13 it was held as follows: “11. In Philipps v. London & South Western Railway Co. (1879) LR 5 QBD 78 (CA), it was held that by making a payment of compensation for the damages, the court cannot put back again the claimant into his original position. On the date of determination of the compensation, he is being compensated but he cannot sue again, therefore, the compensation must be full and final while determining the same. 12. In Re: Mediana, 1900 AC 113 (HL), it is said that the determination for an amount of compensation to the damages is an extreme task. What may be adequate amount for a wrongful act and can it be compensated by money, particularly towards pain and suffering. By an arithmetical calculation, it cannot be decided what may be the exact amount of money which would represent the pain and suffering to a person, but as per recognised principles, damages must be paid. 13. In H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard, 1964 AC 326 : (1963) 2 WLR 1359 (HL), it was held that payment of compensation in terms of money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered, however the courts must consider to award sums, which may be reasonable. Simultaneously, uniformity in the general method of approach is also required. Thereby, possible comparable injuries can be compensated by comparable awards......” 22. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered, however the courts must consider to award sums, which may be reasonable. Simultaneously, uniformity in the general method of approach is also required. Thereby, possible comparable injuries can be compensated by comparable awards......” 22. The learned Tribunal committed a grave error for not awarding loss of past and future earnings by following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand, 2020 (4) SCC 413 wherein Para 16, 17 and 18 are as follows: 16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161, this Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries: (SCC p. 348, Para 6) 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment. (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.” 17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 2 4 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638, this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 276, Para 2) “2........There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation.” Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.” 18. Applying the aforesaid principles, we now proceed to assess the compensation. 23. If the above judgments are read together, the issue of adequacy and the grant of just and reasonable amount of compensation requires consideration is what should be the basis for determination and what may be the reason for awarding such compensation. Applying the uniform methodology for determination of compensation, comparable to the injuries, thereby a person can lead her life though her physical frame cannot be reversed. In the present case of nature, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation under loss of past and future liability in accordance with the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgments, which is not just and reasonable. 24. In the instant case, the injured sustained severe injuries and she was operated and she was examined by Expert Body, assessed her disability 40% as per the Ex.P/12(c) dated 12.09.2019. The learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the said assessment certified by the Expert Body but the learned Tribunal ignored the loss of disability while assessing the compensation. 25. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India v. Talwinder Singh, (2012) 5 SCC 480 has laid down the law that the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the opinion of the experts. 26. In the instant case, the Ex.P/12(c) issued by the Medical Expert Body that the injured sustained disability of 40% dated 12.09.2019 and again she was examined by Medical Board on 21.10.2021 assessed disability at 50%, the disability certificate marked as Ex.P/13. PW-2, Doctor one among the expert body under Ex.P/13, however, Ex.P/13 issued by expert body after two years from the date of issuance of Ex.P/12(c) dated 12.09.2019, therefore, this Court has taken the view that first disability certificate (Ex.P/12(c)) issued by expert body taken into consideration that the appellant suffers from disability of 40% instead of 50%. 27. PW-2, Doctor one among the expert body under Ex.P/13, however, Ex.P/13 issued by expert body after two years from the date of issuance of Ex.P/12(c) dated 12.09.2019, therefore, this Court has taken the view that first disability certificate (Ex.P/12(c)) issued by expert body taken into consideration that the appellant suffers from disability of 40% instead of 50%. 27. In the present case, the injured aged about 28 years at the time of accident and she was unmarried, as per the Doctors opinion she sustained multiple fractures and four screws and plates were inserted and left hip fractured and also fracture in neck femer, she was not able to sit and she was suffering pain in left hip, assessed the disability 40%, thus the calculation of compensation towards loss of future earnings as per the judgment of Rajkumar (supra) and loss of earnings determined by this Court Rs. 12,000/- x 12 (Rs. 1,44,000/-). Thus, the calculation of compensation towards loss of future earnings by applying appropriate multiplier as per the principles laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra): (a) Annual income before the accident (Rs. 12,000 x 12 = 1,44,000) Rs. 1,44,000/- (b) Loss of future earnings per annum (40% of the prior annual income) Rs. 57,600/- (c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age (appellant’s age was 28 years at the time of the accident as per Sarla Verma's case) 17 (d) Loss of future earnings (57,600 x 17) Rs. 9,79,200/- 28. In the present case, the learned Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding a loss of future earnings. Therefore, a reading of the Tribunal award makes it clear that the Tribunal approach does not accord at all with the current judicial opinion, therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 9,79,200/- under the head of “loss of future earnings” which would be substantive. 29. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,44,526/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has committed an error while awarding compensation under the head of medical expenses. The claimant met with an accident on 27.01.2019, immediately she was shifted to Bhopal Fracture Hospital, she spent huge medical expenditure for her treatment and a bunch of medical bills from Ex.P/17 to P/82, Rs. 1,86,546/- which is not disputed by either side. The appellant claimant, who is worker, is not supposed to be that much of meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use. 1,86,546/- which is not disputed by either side. The appellant claimant, who is worker, is not supposed to be that much of meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use. The claimant remained in the hospital and has done many surgeries and four screws and plates were inserted in left hip and she must have incurred more expenditure. The medical bills consist of Ex.P/17 to P/82 showing the expenditure incurred by the claimants towards the treatment which is not in dispute by either of the sides, she may spend more expenditure than the bills. In the present case, the learned Tribunal even did not award actual amount incurred by her and awarded less than the amount incurred. Hence the appellant is entitled to just compensation for Rs. 3,00,000/- for medical expenditure, therefore, the compensation under the head of medical expenditure is enhanced from Rs. 1,44,526/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 30. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for loss of amenities of life, as a person who is suffering 40% permanent disability cannot lead a normal life. PW-2 stated that she was fractured in left femur bone and neck, commutated four screws fixation in left hip and she is not able to walk and sit squarely, she is suffering from the above injuries, therefore, she cannot enjoy pleasures of life and she will miss out fun of her enjoyment and pleasure of marital life and therefore, this Court feels in a peculiar facts and circumstances of the case even after taking a conservative view of the matter and the amount payable for loss of amenities of life awarded an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- may be sufficient. The compensation only the means to grant some support for the loss, she suffered with which is expected to live for the rest of her life by making the payment of compensation for damages. The Court cannot be put back again the claimant into her original position on the date of determination of compensation. She being compensated but cannot be sued again. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Rs. 1,50,000/- has to be awarded towards the loss of amenities of life. 31. The Court cannot be put back again the claimant into her original position on the date of determination of compensation. She being compensated but cannot be sued again. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Rs. 1,50,000/- has to be awarded towards the loss of amenities of life. 31. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of earnings for the period of treatment and the period of rest taken by the injured at least she may be taken rest for six months from the date of accident. The accident occurred on 27.01.2019. She underwent treatment as impatient in Bhopal Fracture Hospital from 27.01.2019 to 01.02.2019 and normally the patient was advised for bed rest because the nature of injuries sustained by her altogether severe in nature and she could not unable to join the work, as she has lost her earning, by taking into the consideration of the evidence, she might have loss of earning for six months, as stated above, would come to Rs. 12,000/- x 6= 72000/-. As such the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 72,000/- under the head of “loss of earnings.” 32. The learned Tribunal awarded meager amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charge, transport and special diet. The claimant met with an accident on 27.01.2019 when she was examined by Doctor on 21.10.2021 by that time she was suffering with severe pain, she was not able to walk or sit comfirtably and having several fractures, therefore, she cannot move alone unless assisted by attendant, hence, enhances the compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of special diet, transport and attendant charges. 33. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal awarded meager amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, with regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant/claimant in the road traffic accident sustained number of fractures and four screws and plates were inserted in the left hip and also suffered fractures in neck and left femur bone. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, with regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant/claimant in the road traffic accident sustained number of fractures and four screws and plates were inserted in the left hip and also suffered fractures in neck and left femur bone. It is contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was meager, it is not disputed that the appellant remained in the hospital for treatment and it is not possible for the Court to make precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by the person whose hip bone was fractured and suffered disability of 40% due to the accident. The injured will have to struggle and face different challenges and she was handicapped. Therefore, in all such cases, the learned Tribunal/Courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly at the time of the accident, the appellant was a young lady of 28 years. For the rest of her life, the appellant will suffer the trauma of not being able to do her normal work, therefore, it is submitted that to meet the ends of justice, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the pain and suffering and trauma causes her, therefore, the compensation under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. 34. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of future medical expenses in view of the injuries sustained by her to remove the implants and screws from her hip bone which needs further treatment. She may be required special mattress which will have to be changed frequently. In future she may face many other medical issues because of injuries suffered in the accident. Keeping in view of her young age and assuming she would live another 40 to 50 years, it would not be unjust to award her for Rs. 1,50,000/- for future medical expenses. 35. In Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. In future she may face many other medical issues because of injuries suffered in the accident. Keeping in view of her young age and assuming she would live another 40 to 50 years, it would not be unjust to award her for Rs. 1,50,000/- for future medical expenses. 35. In Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of ‘just compensation’ observed as under: “Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 36. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference, and the appellant shall be entitled to the compensation figured out in the following table under different heads: S. No. Head of Compensation Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount 1. Loss of future earnings Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 9,79,200/- (Rs. 12,000 x 12 = Rs. 1,44,000 x 40% x 17 = Rs. 9,79,200/-) 2. Medical expenses Rs. 1,44,526/- Rs. 3,00,000/- 3. Loss of amenities of life -- Rs. 1,50,000/- 4. Attendant charges, diet and transportation Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 5. Pain, suffering & trauma as a consequence of the injuries as disability is 40% in view of judgment of Mallikarjun vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, 2014 (14) SCC 396 Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- 6. Future medical expenditure and treatment -- Rs. 1,50,000/- 7. Loss of earning -- Rs. 72,000/- 8. Future inconvenience Rs. 5,000/- -- Total Rs. 2,29,526/- Rs. 19,01,200/- 37. A decision in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunuchand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204 , Para 17 as follows: “17. 10,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- 6. Future medical expenditure and treatment -- Rs. 1,50,000/- 7. Loss of earning -- Rs. 72,000/- 8. Future inconvenience Rs. 5,000/- -- Total Rs. 2,29,526/- Rs. 19,01,200/- 37. A decision in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunuchand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204 , Para 17 as follows: “17. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.” 38. In the light of the above decision, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant in this appeal for enhancement of Rs. 4,00,000/-. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal/Court to award “just compensation” even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just and proper. In the present case, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable, and the claimant is entitled to more compensation though she might not have claimed the same at the time of filing this appeal. 39. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference and thereby enhances the compensation from Rs. 2,29,526/- to Rs. 19,01,200/-. 40. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with costs and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 2,29,526/- to Rs. 39. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference and thereby enhances the compensation from Rs. 2,29,526/- to Rs. 19,01,200/-. 40. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with costs and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 2,29,526/- to Rs. 19,01,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, against respondents No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally: (i) Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against insurance company. (ii) The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the requisite Court fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the amount awarded [As per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2019 ACJ 559 (SC)]. (iii) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest and costs, by filing a proper application before the learned Tribunal. (iv) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above. (v) The record be sent back to the Tribunal within three weeks from this day. (vi) As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.