JUDGMENT : J. C. Doshi, J. 1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 18.08.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhuj - Kutch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.423 of 1996. 1.1. On service of summons, claimant has filed Cross Objection for enhancement of claim amount. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- 2.1 On 01.10.1995, minor - J along with her relatives was going in ST Bus No.GJ-1-Z-8118 from Bhuj to Palanpur, when they reached near place of accident, Truck No.GQY-5271 driven by its driver came in negligent and rash manner and dashed the motorcycle and as a result, the minor J received serious injuries. 2.2 FIR of incident was registered before the concerned Police Station. 2.3. The claimant filed claim petition under section 166 of MV Act being MACP No.423 of 1996 claiming compensation of Rs.14,50,000/- along with interest jointly and severally from the opponents. 2.4. After appreciating evidence on record, learned Tribunal was pleased to pass judgment and award in tune of Rs.7,99,250/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition. 2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and award dated 18.08.2011, the Insurance Company has filed present appeal. 3. Learned advocate Ms.Bhaya for Insurance Company submitted that appeal is filed on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo, more particularly, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.7,99,250/- to the original claimant as assessment of compensation is on higher side. It is submitted that learned Tribunal assessed compensation on various heads having no support of evidence. She would further submit that learned Tribunal has granted compensation for future medical expenses etc., which should not be granted in absence of documentary evidence. Therefore, it is submitted to reduce the amount of compensation granted to the claimant by allowing the first appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Dave for the claimants who has filed Cross Objection for enhancement of compensation submitted that though learned Tribunal has granted compensation on other heads are reasonable, yet learned Tribunal erred in taking notional income of the claimant and calculated compensation without adding loss of future prospects. It is submitted that learned Tribunal erred in apply multiplier of 15 instead of 18. It is submitted that learned Tribunal erred in apply multiplier of 15 instead of 18. Therefore, it is submitted to recalculate the compensation so far as loss of income as well as loss of future prospects by allowing Cross Objection. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, at the outset, it ti be noticed that minor J at the relevant time was travelling ST Bus No.GJ-1-Z-8118 along with parents and relatives from Bhuj to Palanpur on seat no.21 to 23 and when the said Bus reached near village Makel on National Highway No.15, it dashed with Truck No.GQY-5271, resulting into road accident. In this accident, minor J received injuries on right hand which was later on amputated from elbow. Learned Tribunal assessed Rs.15,000/- as notional income and applied 45% disability and further applied multiplier of 15 for assessing loss of future income. So for loss of future income, learned Tribunal granted Rs.1,01,250/-. Minor J at the relevant time was 5 years. Apart from calculating compensation for future earning, learned Tribunal granted medical expenses at Rs.30,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- permanent disability, Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. In total, learned Tribunal granted Rs.7,99,250/- as compensation. Truck driver was held liable to pay compensation along with 9% interest from the date of petition till realization. Truck driver was held sole negligent in causing road accident. Consequently, driver, owner and insurer of Truck were directed to pay amount of compensation. 6. Learned advocate Ms.Bhaya though argued on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo, however, could not point out any error in the finding of learned Tribunal including the finding that driver of the truck was sole negligent in causing road accident. In the road accident, truck driver dashed bus from behind which resulted into road accident. Scene of accident establish that driver of truck was fully negligent. Moreover, it is to be noted that driver of truck did not enter into witness box to put correct version of road accident denying assertion made by the claimants against driver of truck. In wake of such, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of learned Tribunal fastening liability upon the owner and insurer of the truck. Moreover, it is to be noted that driver of truck did not enter into witness box to put correct version of road accident denying assertion made by the claimants against driver of truck. In wake of such, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of learned Tribunal fastening liability upon the owner and insurer of the truck. Even I see no reason to believe that compensation granted by learned Tribunal is on higher side, rather it appears to be on lower side. So far as compensation of loss of future income as well as not granting future prospects is concerned, learned Tribunal has taken notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. In the case on hand, minor J was 5 years old at the time of accident and lost her right hand, generally being working hand for the righties. Looking to this aspect, in absence of evidence of income and where claimant is non earning victim of road accident, sustained permanent disability, principle culled out by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Krishna Murthi v/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. [ 2020 (15) SCC 493 ] would be relevant to decide present appeal. In para 23, it is held as under :- "23) From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgments, inter alia, following principles can be culled out which would be relevant for deciding the instant appeal: (i) In those cases where the victim of the accident is not an earning person but a student, while assessing the compensation for loss of future earning, the focus of the examination would be the career prospect and the likely earning of such a person in future. For example, where the claimant is pursuing a particular professional course, the poseer would be: what would have been his income had he joined a service commensurating with the said course. That can be the future earning. (ii) There may be cases where the victim is not, at that stage, doing any such course to get a particular job. He or she may be studying in a school. In such a case, future career would depend upon multiple factors like the family background, choice/interest of the complainant to pursue a particular career, facilities available to him/her for adopting such a career, the favourable surrounding circumstances to see which would have enabled the claimant to successfully pick up the said career etc. In such a case, future career would depend upon multiple factors like the family background, choice/interest of the complainant to pursue a particular career, facilities available to him/her for adopting such a career, the favourable surrounding circumstances to see which would have enabled the claimant to successfully pick up the said career etc. If the chosen field is employment, then the future earning can be taken on the basis of salary and allowances which are payable for such calling. In case, career is a particular profession, the future earning would depend on host of other factors on the basis of which chances to achieve success in such a profession can be ascertained. (iii) There may be cases like Deo Patodi where even a student, the claimant would have made earnings on parttime basis or would have received offer for a particular job. In such cases, these factors would also assume relevance. (iv) After ascertaining the likely earning of the victim in the aforesaid manner, the nature of injuries and disability suffered as a result thereof would be kept in mind while determining as to how much earning has been affected thereby. Here, impact of injuries on functional disability is to be seen. In case of death of victim, it would result in total loss of earning. In the case of injuries, the nature of disability becomes important. Such an exercise was undertaken in N. Manjegowda case." 7. Learned advocate Mr.Dave brought on record relevant factors that at the time of accident, victim was not studying, there is no evidence with the claimant to focus on future prospects but father of the victim is practicing lawyer in Bhuj district and according to him, he was earning Rs.5000/- per month at the time of accident. Accident took place on 01.10.1995 and out of road accident claimant has received 45% disability. Another factor which has gone unnoticed is that learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of future prospects. According to this Court, considering time period of road accident and family background of claimant, if Rs.24,000/- is adopted towards annual income, it would sub serve justice. 40% is required to be added towards future prospects. As per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ], multiplier of "18" would be applied. 40% is required to be added towards future prospects. As per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ], multiplier of "18" would be applied. In total, loss of future income would be Rs.3,67,200/-(Rs.24,000/- x 45% = Rs.10,800/ + 40% rise as prospective income = Rs.20,400/- per annum x 18 multiplier). Learned Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- as future medical expenses, but looking to the fact that claimant has received serious injury, amount of Rs.50,000/- is required to be granted towards future medical expenses. Learned Tribunal has granted Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses but considering the fact that right hand of claimant is amputated below elbow, I grant Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. 8. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which the claimants/s is/are entitled to get. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Medical expenses 50,000/- Attendant charges. 33,000/- Loss of future income and future prospects 3,67,200/- Pain, shock and suffering 2,00,000/- Permanent disability 3,00,000/- Future medical expenses 50,000/- Transportation expenses 10,000/- Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000/- Total 11,10,200/- Less: compensation already awarded 7,99,250/- Additional amount which is awarded 3,10,950/- 9. Therefore, I hold that the claimants are entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,10,950/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 10.1 The present first appeal is dismissed and Cross Objection is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 10.2 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest as stated herein above within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 10.3 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. 10.4 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. 10.5 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.