GUDGMENT : SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the claimant against the impugned judgment and award dated 13.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, E.C. Act Meerut in MACP No. 642 of 2009 (Km. Anchal Jain vs. Sahkari Ganna Union Mawana,Meerut and others), whereby, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident which occurred on 29.12.2008, a compensation of Rs. 10,83,950/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimant, which has been ordered to beindemnified by the insurer of the offending Bolero No.UP15-AF-3348. 2. Since there is no cross appeal by the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle as such, the factum of accident and negligence ofthe offending driver is not disputed by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on Scooty No.UP-15-AF-4501 at the time of the accident and was returning home from her school i.e. Sofia Girls School, Meerut then the scooty was hit by the offending Bolero No.UP15- AF-3348, causing grievous injuries to the claimants due to which she has suffered 100% permanent disability, which was proved by examining ten witnesses before the tribunal, but the tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation to the claimant. He further submitted that, from the evidence of Dr. Sandeep Sehgal PW-9, it stands proved that the claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability. She is bedridden and living in a vegetative state, unable to move her limbs or body, and will remain confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life. She cannot speak, is undergoing regular physiotherapy and speech therapy, and requires two attendants constantly to look after her, as well as the services of a driver for attending medical treatment and hospital visits. However, despite this evidence on record, the Tribunal has failed to consider these circumstances.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, the claimants are at least entitled to compensation on the basis of minimum wages paid to a skilled workmen, which were prevalent at the time of the accident in the State of U.P., which was approximately Rs.4,500/- per month. He further submitted that the claimant requires life long care and attention, future treatment, her chances of marriage have vanished, she has been deprived from the loss of amenities, she has become dependent on everyone, which itself is a curse. The claimant was studying in class X at the time of the accident in a reputed English medium school of Meerut, who had a very bright future, which has become dark. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the claimant is also entitled to compensation on future prospects. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and enhanced compensation be awarded to the claimant. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, has very fairly conceded that keeping in view the evidence on record, the tribunal has awarded compensation on the lower side, which requires to be enhanced keeping in view the precedents of the Apex Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents submitted with the appeal. Appeal is admitted. 6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant has examined Ajay Jain as PW-1, Ayushi Mohan as PW-2, Dr. Ravindra Singh as PW-3, Sanjay Kumar as PW-4, Noren Umrav as PW-5, Deen Dayal as PW-6, Dhoop Singh as PW-7, Ankur as PW-8, Dr. Sandeep Sehgal as PW-9 and Sachin as PW- 10. Besides the above oral evidence, documentary evidence of treatment, hospitalization, cash memos of medicines purchased were also filed by the claimant. 7. PW-1 Ajay Jain, who is the father of the claimant, deposed that the claimant was admitted on 29.12.2008 at 10:00 AM in Dayanand Nursing Home, Meerut and later, on the same day she was admitted to Hope Hospital, Meerut and from there, she was taken to Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi where she remained admitted from 04.02.2009 to 14.02.2009. PW-1 further deposed that the treatment of the claimant was continuing. The claimant was being treated by speech therapist Dr. Pooran Singh and Physiotherapist Dr. Sanjay. The claimant was completely bedridden who was neither able to move or speak nor perform her routine work. She was totally dependent on others. 8. PW-2 Ayushi Mohan who was driving the scooty at the time of the accident, deposed that the claimant was in coma due to the injuries suffered in the accident, who was unable to speak and was completely bedridden. PW-3, Dr. She was totally dependent on others. 8. PW-2 Ayushi Mohan who was driving the scooty at the time of the accident, deposed that the claimant was in coma due to the injuries suffered in the accident, who was unable to speak and was completely bedridden. PW-3, Dr. Ravindra Singh, an orthopedic surgeon, deposed that the claimant, due to the injuries sustained on her head, has suffered 100% permanent disability and was unable to sit, move, speak, or perform her routine activities. He specifically stated that there was no possibility of the claimant ever recovering from the injuries sustained by her. He further deposed that the claimant was unable to speak or walk, and although the left side of her body was normal, she has suffered disability on the right side of her body. PW-9 Dr. Sandeep Sehgal, who is a neurosurgeon, deposed that the claimant remained in his treatment, who was neither able to stand nor walk. She was incapable of holding or lifting any object with her hands. She was also unable to speak. Her treatment was still continuing. There was neither any recovery of the claimant nor there is any possibility of her recovery in future. She was only able to move her eyelids. She was unable to move her muscles and perform any work. He specifically deposed that the injury sustained by the claimant was so severe that she is in a vegetative state. PW-4 Sanjay Kumar deposed that if the claimant does not receive physiotherapy, her joints will become stiff, and therefore, she requires continuous physiotherapy, throughout her life. 9. PW-5 Noren Umrav proved that he was employed as a domestic servant by the claimant's father for taking care of claimant,who was being paid salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. Similarly, PW-7 Dhoop Singh deposed that he gives speech therapy to the claimant. PW-10 Sachin deposed that he was working as a driver with claimant's father and was being paid salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. He deposed that he takes the claimant in the car to the hospital and doctor for treatment. 10. The judgment of the tribunal specifically records that during argument, the claimant was present in the Court on wheelchair and when the court inquired her about her health then she merely moved her neck and she was unable to speak. He deposed that he takes the claimant in the car to the hospital and doctor for treatment. 10. The judgment of the tribunal specifically records that during argument, the claimant was present in the Court on wheelchair and when the court inquired her about her health then she merely moved her neck and she was unable to speak. The tribunal has specifically recorded a finding that the claimant was unable to speak and she was only able to move on a wheelchair. The tribunal was also convinced that due to the injuries sustained by the claimant in her brain, she has stopped speaking and moving and the tribunal also concluded that the claimant has become 100% permanently disabled but inspite of this, the tribunal has only awarded a meager amount of compensation to the claimant, which is a travesty of justice. 11. It is apparent that the claimant was about 16 years old at the time of the accident, who was studying in class X in a reputed college i.e. Sofia Girls School, Meerut. She had a very bright future, which has become dark due to the unfortunate accident. The tribunal has assessed the compensation by taking notional income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which is grossly inadequate. The tribunal has applied multiplier of 16 for assessing compensation, which is also erroneous. The claimant alleged that she has incurred an expenditure of Rs.15 lacs on her treatment but could only submit the bills and cash memos of treatment expenses amounting to Rs.7,93,950/- which was allowed by the tribunal. The tribunal only awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. The tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards attendant and driver charges, towards future prospect of the claimant, future treatment expenses, non pecuniary damages, such as, loss of marriage prospect, loss of amenities, expenses of physiotherapy. In this way the tribunal has not awarded any expenditure to be incurred in future on the above heads, which is erroneous. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413 , Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2022) 7 SCC 738 , Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413 , Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2022) 7 SCC 738 , Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692 and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Another 2025 INSC 1070 has held that where a claimant has suffered 100% permanent functional disability due to an accident, the compensation under the head of loss of income must be awarded, at the very least, on the basis of the minimum wages of a skilled workman prevailing at the time of the accident in that region and should not be assumed on a notional basis. 13. It is apparent that the tribunal has concluded that the claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability due to the injuries suffered in the accident, which has not been challenged by the insurer of the offending vehicle, as such, that finding of the tribunal, has attained finality. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 790 (By Three Judges) while considering the issue of awarding future prospects in cases of permanent disablement from motor accident, held as under:- 7. Two questions arise for consideration : one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-Judge Bench decision in Jagdish [Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 572] was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant [Anant v. Pratap, (2018) 9 SCC 450 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 378 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 756] to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This Court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this Court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases — and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another (2023) 3 SCC 439 , while directing that in cases of serious permanent disability, compensation for future prospects should also be awarded, held as under:- 31. It is now a well-settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases-and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death. 16. The Apex Court in the case of Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRS. and others, (2023) 13 SCC 334 while directing that in cases of permanent disability, there should not be any deduction for personal expenses, held as under:- 15. The High Court deducted 50% of compensation towards personal expenses. The present case being not of death and the claim not being made by the dependents, but the same being by a survivor in the accident with severe injuries resulting into permanent disability, there could not be any justification for deduction of personal expenses. The High Court deducted 50% of compensation towards personal expenses. The present case being not of death and the claim not being made by the dependents, but the same being by a survivor in the accident with severe injuries resulting into permanent disability, there could not be any justification for deduction of personal expenses. We do not approve the said deduction in view of the judgment of this Court in Lalan D. [Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 805 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 253 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 238] 17. In the light of the above decisions of the Apex Court it is apparent that in case of permanent disability, the claimant is entitled to compensation for future prospects and there was no need to deduct 1/3rd or any other percentage from out of the income of the claimant, towards the personal and living expenses of the claimant. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in FAFO No.2581 of 2011, Sushil Kumar & Another vs. M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt. Ltd. & Another decided on 26.04.2017 has held that even if the accident occurred prior to 26.09.2011, the claimants are entitled to compensation on future prospects as per amended Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, since it is a beneficial legislation. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Rahul Ganpatrao Sable (supra) has awarded compensation towards attendant charges, future medical expenses, loss of marriage prospects and pain and suffering. 20. Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 w.e.f. 26.09.2011, mandates that when the deceased was aged below 40 years on the date of accident, the claimants are also entitled to compensation on future prospects @50% of his income. 21. In the instant case, at the time of the accident the minimum wages of skilled workman in the State of U.P. was at least Rs.4,500/- per month. Since the claimant was about 16 years old at the time of the accident who was studying in class X, who had a very bright future, as such, it will be appropriate that her income is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month, for determining compensation in this case. Since the claimant was about 16 years old at the time of the accident who was studying in class X, who had a very bright future, as such, it will be appropriate that her income is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month, for determining compensation in this case. Besides that, as per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 the claimant is also entitled to compensation on future prospects at the rate of 50% since she was aged about 16 years on the date of the accident. Besides that, compensation has to be assessed by applying multiplier of 18 whereas the tribunal has assessed compensation by applying multiplier of 16, which is inadequate. 22. The tribunal has disallowed the expenses incurred by the claimant towards driver and attendant on the ground that these jobs can be performed by the family members of the claimant, which is a perverse reasoning. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Kajal (supra) that the tortfeasor cannot take benefit of the gratuitous service rendered by the family members. The Apex Court has awarded compensation for loss of earning to family members, who remained busy in the treatment of the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to get expenses incurred on the driver @ Rs.4,000/- per month as proved from the evidence of PW-10, Sachin. 23. In view of the above statutory law and precedents of the Apex Court, the compensation payable to the claimant is redetermined as under:- 24. In this way, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.65,95,950/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum (as awarded by the tribunal) from the date of filing of the claim petition till it's actual payment, which is to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle. 25. It is apparent that the tribunal has awarded interest on compensation from the date of adducing evidence i.e. 19.09.2011, which is erroneous. The tribunal has failed to appreciate that the claimant was severely injured who was undergoing treatment, as such, it took time to collect all the evidence. In view of this, the claimant is entitled to interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual payment. 26. The appeal is allowed. The award of the tribunal is modified to the above extent. 27. In view of this, the claimant is entitled to interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual payment. 26. The appeal is allowed. The award of the tribunal is modified to the above extent. 27. If any amount has been paid by the insurance company previously, then the insurance company is entitled to adjust it accordingly. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before the concerned tribunal within two months. 28. The tribunal is directed to deposit the total enhanced compensation alongwith interest in a fixed deposit of a bank, bearing maximum monthly interest and the claimant through her father/mother/brother will be entitled to withdraw the accrued monthly interest regularly for sustaining her livelihood. The tribunal will be at liberty to permit withdrawal from fixed deposit in special circumstances, keeping in view the claimants'requirement. 29. The insurance company is directed to apportion interest for every financial year, from the date of accident till actual payment of compensation. The whole amount of interest payable to the claimant in a financial year be considered her income. After considering the tax free limit, rebate available under Section 87A and 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the relevant assessment year, only then deduction of income tax on interest be made, if it is taxable, otherwise no income tax be deducted for that assessment year. The PAN of the claimant should also be considered.