JUDGMENT : J.P. Desai , J. The. Appellant Jayantilal Tribhovanbhai who was minor at the time of this incident which took place on 8.1.1979 was injured while passing on the road when he was knocked down by motor car No. MRG 6325 which was being driven by Respondent No. 1, Kirit Manilal Shah. The Appellant sustained serious injuries. The father of the Appellant as his guardian and next friend filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Narol for compensation claiming Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. The Appellant claimed lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The learned Assistant Judge, Narol presiding over that Tribunal awarded in all Rs. 12,000/- as compensation under different heads as stated below: (1) Future economic loss to Jayantilal. Rs. 4,500/- (2) For pain, shock and suffering to Jayantilal. Rs. 4,000/- (3) As actual pecuniary loss suffered by the Applicant upto the date of hearing. Rs. 1,000/- (4) For medicine and treatment. Rs. 400/- (5) For special diet. Rs. 300/- (6) For transportation charges. Rs. 300/- (7) For economic loss to Tribhovandas. Rs. 1,500/- Total Rs. 12,000/- Being dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation, this appeal has been filed for getting additional amount of compensation. 2. The learned Tribunal took the monthly income of the Appellant as Rs. 100/- per month even though the case of the Appellant was that he was earning about Rs. 200/- by doing miscellaneous labour work. The opponents, of course, raised a contention that he was not earning that much amount, but there was evidence on oath on the side of the Appellant that the Appellant was earning about Rs. 200/- per month. 3. In these days, the say of the Appellant that he was earning Rs. 200/- per month cannot be said to be unreasonable. The learned Tribunal has simply, after narrating the rival contentions of the parties, stated that the earning must be fixed at Rs. 100/- per month. The learned Tribunal has arbitrarily fixed the amount of Rs. 100/- per month. 4. The learned Advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar for Mr. S.B. Vakil, who appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 3, insurance company, was unable to support this conclusion of the learned Tribunal. I am, therefore, inclined to take the earnings of the Appellant at Rs. 200/- per month. Taking Rs. 100/- per month. 4. The learned Advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar for Mr. S.B. Vakil, who appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 3, insurance company, was unable to support this conclusion of the learned Tribunal. I am, therefore, inclined to take the earnings of the Appellant at Rs. 200/- per month. Taking Rs. 200/- per month as the earnings of the Appellant, the future economic loss would come to Rs. 9,000/- and the actual pecuniary loss will come to Rs. 2,000/-. 5. So far as the amount of compensation for pain, shock and suffering is concerned, the learned Tribunal has assessed that amount at Rs. 4,000/- only. The discussion made by the learned Tribunal at para 22 of the judgment shows that the Appellant had to take prolonged treatment and he had suffered serious injuries on the forehead and had developed the disease of epilepsy which was likely to continue for a long period. Taking the reasonings given by the learned Tribunal at para 22 of the judgment into consideration, the amount for pain, shock and suffering assessed at Rs. 4,000/- can be said to be too low. The amount should be assessed at least at Rs. 12,000/-. 6. The excess amount of compensation which the Appellant is thus entitled to comes to Rs. 4,500/- towards future economic loss, Rs. 8,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 1,000/- towards actual pecuniary loss. The total amount of additional compensation thus comes to Rs. 13,500/- (Rs. 4500/- + Rs. 8,000/- + Rs. 1,000/-). The Appellant has, however, claimed only Rs. 13,000/- as additional compensation in this appeal as the original claim was for Rs. 25,000/-. Hence Rs. 13,000/-can be awarded as additional compensation to the Appellant. 7. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the appeal is allowed. The Appellant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 13,000/- with running interest at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition before the Tribunal till the date of depositing the said amount with the Tribunal, together with the costs on the additional amount of compensation to the Tribunal. The Respondents should also pay the costs of this appeal to the Appellant and bear their own. Appeal allowed.