JUDGMENT : (Madan Gopal Vyas, J.) : In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2156/2007 The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 10.05.2007 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, MACT Cases, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned Tribunal') in MAC case No.457/2005, whereby learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant-claimant and awarded an amount of Rs.3,36,400/-as compensation. 2. The facts in brief are that on 22.03.2004, the appellant-claimant Prakash was going on his motorcycle bearing No. RJ-19/9 M 2716 from village Badali to Lordi. Near about 08.15 PM, when he reached in front of 'Choudhary Hotel', a bus bearing No.RJ 24/P 1428 hit the motorcycle, resulting into various simple and grievous injuries to the appellant-claimant. Thus, a claim petition was filed by the claimant. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,36,400/-as compensation to the claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement in compensation. 3. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant submits that learned Tribunal has committed gross illegality while awarding a meagre compensation of Rs.3,36,400/-. It is further submitted that in the accident that occurred on 22.03.2004, the appellant suffered 40% disability. It is further submitted that right leg of the appellant-claimant was amputated below the knee, therefore, he remained hospitalized for a quite long time. During the said period, appellant-claimant suffered huge loss of income and also incurred heavy expenses towards his treatment. Due to the accident, the appellant-claimant has become a disabled person and has to depend upon others for his routine work. It is further submitted that while awarding the amount of compensation, learned Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future prospects. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation in the heads viz. loss of income, permanent disablement, medical expenses and transportation etc. which deserve to be enhanced suitably. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC and prayed that the compensation be enhanced suitably. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent -RSRTC submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and the same does not call for any interference. 5. reported in (2017) 16 SCC and prayed that the compensation be enhanced suitably. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent -RSRTC submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and the same does not call for any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award as well as the material available on record. 6. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant-claimant Rs.3,000/-per month. Looking to the age of claimant, the multiplier of 18 was applied. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,000/-under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.4200/-under the head of expense due to hospitalization, Rs.13,000/-for medical bill and incidental expense, Rs.9,000/-for attendant charges, Rs.30,000/-under the head of Loss of estate and Rs.5,000/-for nutritious diet, which in my opinion is just and proper. Learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration that in the accident, the appellant has suffered disability to the extent of 40%, however, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects to the appellant-claimant. therefore, in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ], this Court deems it appropriate to award the amount of compensation under the head of future prospects. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the following computation is approved for calculating the enhanced compensation awardable to the appellant-claimant : Total Loss of Future Prospects (Annual income including disability x 18 x 40%) (A) (3000 x 12+14,400) x 18 X 40% Rs.3,62,880/- Pain & suffering (B) Rs.16,000/- Hospitalization Expenses (C) Rs.4,200/- Medical Bill & Incidental Charges (D) Rs.13,000/- Attendant Charges (E) Rs.9,000/- Loss of Estate (F) Rs.30,000/- Nutritious diet (G) Rs.5,000/- Total compensation awardable (H) = A+B+C+D+E+F+G Rs.4,40,080/- Compensation already awarded (I) Rs.3,36,400/- Enhanced compensation (H-I) Rs.1,03,680/- 7. The claimant shall be entitled to an interest at the rate of 6% on the total awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 19.05.2004. 8. Any amount already paid by the respondent -RSRTC shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The claimant shall be entitled to an interest at the rate of 6% on the total awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 19.05.2004. 8. Any amount already paid by the respondent -RSRTC shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment & award passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, MACT Cases, Jodhpur in MAC case No.457/2005 is modified and the appellant-claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation as indicated above. 10. Record, if received, be sent back to learned Tribunal forthwith. 11. No order as to costs. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1853/2007 In view of the fact that the connected appeal bearing No.2156/2007 preferred by the appellant-claimant has partly been allowed by this Court, nothing survives for adjudication in the present appeal preferred by the RSRTC, and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed as having no substance.