J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (No. 4) at Ahmedabad (Tribunal for short hereinafter) on 10-10-1979 in a Motor Accident Claim Application No. 193 of 1978 by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (Act for short hereinafter ). ( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to the present appeal may be staled at the outset. ( 3 ) THE present appellant is the original claimant and the present respondents are the original opponents For the sake of convenience and brevity they are hereinafter referred to as the original claimant and opponents ( 4 ) THE original claimant filed an application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs 24 900 for personal injuries arising out of a vehicular acci- dent The accident in question occurred on 2-4-1978 at about 5. 30 p. m. near Sharda Mandir Cross Roads in Ahmedabad. The claimant was driving the auto-rickshaw No. GTH 6969 and original opponent No. 1 was driving AMTS bus No. GTH 8836 at the relevant point of time The claimant inter alia contended that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant point of time and the said bus dashed against the front portion of the auto-rickshaw as a result of which the auto-rickshaw became turtled resulting into personal injuries to the claimant and damage to the rickshaw ( 5 ) ORIGINAL opponents appeared and resisted the claim petition. It was inter alia contended that the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the claimant. It was alternatively contended that the driver of the auto-rickshaw-claimant was contributory negligent ( 6 ) AFTER having considered the evidence on record the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the accident in question occurred on account of rashness and negligence on the part of both the drivers i. e. original claimant and opponent No. 1 The learned Tribunal apportioned the liability for the happening of the unfortunate collision between the two vehicles. It was hold by the Tribunal that the claimant being driver of the auto-rickshaw was contributory negligent to the extent of 60% in the happening of the unfortunate accident The Tribunal found that the claimant would be entitled to Rs 16 250 by way of compensation. But the said amount was sliced down on account of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant Therefore the Tribunal awarded Rs 6500 by way of compensation for the personal injuries to the claimant ( 7 ) BEING dissatisfied by the judgment and award disallowing the remaining amount of Rs 18 400 the original claimant has now come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the apppellant original claimant firstly contended that the find- ing of the Tribunal with regard to the apportion- ment of the liability is totally erroneous. In that it is contended that the accident in question took place due to the sheer negligence of the driver of the offending bus Attention of this Court is also invited to the evidence of the witnesses and the Panehnama at Ex. 43 This contention is seriously opposed by the learned Counsel for the original opponents ( 9 ) IN order to appreciate the merits of these contentions it would be necessary to refer the relevant facts on record The AMTS bus involved in the accident in question was proceeding from north to south The auto-rickshaw driven by the original claimant vas proceeding from east to west. It is clear from the evidence on record that the bus was going straight The driver of the bus had almost crossed half of the inter-section but the driver of the auto-rickshaw had not entered into the inter-section The collision between the two vehicles resulted into damage to the front portion of the auto-rickshaw and middle left front portion of the bus Had the driver of auto- rickshaw the original claimant been little more careful and circumspect he would not have en- tered into the inter-section The care and caution required of a prudent driver was not observed by the claimant immediately before the accident The Tribunal has considered the evidence and the attendant circumstances and reached to the conclusion that the accident was the outcome of rashness and negligence on the pan of both the drivers The Tribunal also found that the contribution of the claimant being the driver of the auto-rickshaw in the happening of the acci- dent was to the extent of 60%. This finding of fact based on the evidence cannot be said to be unrea- sonable or warranting any interference in this appeal. Having examined the evidence on record this Court is unable to uphold the first contention raised on behalf of the original claimant. There- fore the first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-original claimant must fail. ( 10 ) IT is seriously contended on behalf of the original claimant that the Tribunal has committed serious error in awarding only Rs. 5 0 under the head of pain shock and suffer- ings. It is also contended that the Tribunal should have awarded at least a sum of Rs. 12 0 for pain shock and sufferings in the light of the evidence on the record. This submission is also challenged. In order to appreciate this submission it may be mentioned that the injured claim- ant is a living victim of a violent accident. He has sustained serious injuries and has 15% per- manent partial disablement in the working of right leg. The evidence on record clearly shows that the claimant had sustained fracture and he was shifted to V. S. Hospital at Ahmedabad where he was kept as an indoor patient for 7 days. Thereafter he was admittedly undergo- ing treatment for a long spell of 6 1/2 months. Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. The evidence on record clearly shows that the claimant had sustained fracture and he was shifted to V. S. Hospital at Ahmedabad where he was kept as an indoor patient for 7 days. Thereafter he was admittedly undergo- ing treatment for a long spell of 6 1/2 months. Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. Parikh has staled in his evidence that the injured claimant is having difficulty in walking in squatting and in sitting cross-legged position. There is also shortening of right leg by 1 cm. There is unfortunately malun- ion at the site of the fracture. The original claimant was 26 years old when he became the unfor- tunate victim of the road accident. Considering the nature and number of injuries and the effect on the bodily integrity of the claimant the period of treatment and hospitalisation subsequent treat- ment age and avocation of the claimant an amount of Rs. 12 0 under the head of pain shock and sufferings cannot be said to be unreasonable. In the opinion of this Court the Tribunal has failed to appreciate this aspect and committed serious error in awarding only Rs. 5 0 under this head. Consequently the claimant would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 7 0 under this head. ( 11 ) SINCE this Court has also found that the claimant was contributory negligent to the hap- pening of the accident to the extent of 60% this amount is to be sliced down to that extent. With the result the original claiment would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 2800. 00 by way of compensation under the head of pain shock and sufferings. ( 12 ) IT is seriously contended by the learned Counsel for the original claimant that the amount awarded under the head of future economic loss is also grossly inadequate. The Tribunal has after considering the evidence reached to the conclusion that the claimant would suffer a loss of Rs. 35. 00 per month on account of permanent partial disablement. It is therefore seriously criticised that the finding of the Tribunal is not only unreasonable but is totally erroneous. It is contended in view of the facts on record that the claimant could have been awarded Rs. 100. 00 per month by way of economic loss. This contention is also challenged on behalf of the original opponents. It is therefore seriously criticised that the finding of the Tribunal is not only unreasonable but is totally erroneous. It is contended in view of the facts on record that the claimant could have been awarded Rs. 100. 00 per month by way of economic loss. This contention is also challenged on behalf of the original opponents. The Tribunal assessed the total income of the claiment at the relevant point of time at Rs. 700/ -. It is true that the claimant was working as a pattern checker in weaving departments of New Commercial Mill at the relevant point of time. He was a daily-wager as found from the evidence of the time-keeper Thakorbhai Gandalal Ex. 34. The salary certificate is produced at Ex. 36. It may also be mentioned that the claimant has staled in the claim petition as well as in his evidence at Ex. 215 that he was earning Rs. 600. 00 per month at the relevant point of time. The time-keeper Thakorbhai Gandabhai has also staled in his evidence that the claimant was earn- ing Rs. 600. 00 per month. Salary certificate Ex. 36 dated 7 indicates that the original claimant was earning Rs. 667/87 by way of monthly salary in the month of July 1979. There is no dispute about the fact that when the accident occurred the claimant was driving the rickshaw. It is his case that he was earning Rs. 300. 00 by way of driving the auto-rickshaw before and after the working hours in the said mill. The Tribunal has assessed the total monthly income of the claimant at the relevant point of time at Rs. 700. 00. However the future economic loss is assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 35. 00 per month. This assessment made by the Tribunal is not only conservative but grossly inadequate. The claimant has sustained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 15% in the working of his right leg. There is shortening of 1 cm. in the right leg. The claimant finds difficulty in walking in sitting cross-legged position and in squatting. These factors would undoubtedly affect the capacity to earn for a person who belongs to a labour class. It is true that the time-keeper Thakorbhai Gandabhai has not in terms stated in his evidence Ex. There is shortening of 1 cm. in the right leg. The claimant finds difficulty in walking in sitting cross-legged position and in squatting. These factors would undoubtedly affect the capacity to earn for a person who belongs to a labour class. It is true that the time-keeper Thakorbhai Gandabhai has not in terms stated in his evidence Ex. 34 that the claimant is likely to suffer future economic loss on account of the resultant permanent partial disablement. However that aspect itself would not cause an impediment in awarding a just and reasonable amount of compensation under the head of future economic loss. It is a matter of common understanding that a person who belongs to a labour class would have a weak case in the employment market with the aforesaid physical impairment which requires to be compen- sated. What will be the exact future economic loss to the claimant in so far as his future earnings are concerned will be a matter of anybodys guess. But it can safely be concluded that consid- ering the nature of avocation and type of work to which the claimant belongs to and the resultant physical impairment the claimant would suffer at least an economic loss of Rs. 70. 00 per month. Therefore the claimant would be entitled to at least an amount of Rs. 7 x 12 = Rs. 840/- per annum. ( 13 ) THE question now would arise as to what multiplier should be adopted in the present case. The claimant was 26 years old at the time of the accident. Therefore 15 years purchase factor would be quite proper and reasonable. In the result the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 840 x 15=rs. 12 600 the head of prospective economic loss. Again this amount is required to be sliced down on account of the fact that the original claimant is found contributory negligent in the happening of the accident to the extent of 60 Therefore the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 5040. 00 by way of amount under the head of future economic loss. It may be mentioned that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2520. 00 under the need of future economic loss. There- fore this amount is required to be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5040. 00. Therefore the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 2520. 00 by way of amount under the head of future economic loss. It may be mentioned that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2520. 00 under the need of future economic loss. There- fore this amount is required to be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5040. 00. Therefore the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 2520. 00 under the head of future economic loss addition- ally. ( 14 ) IN view of the settled proposition of law and the facts of the present case the claimant should be awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till its realisation. The claimant therefore would be entitled to an additional amount of compensa- Lion to the tune of Rs. 5320. 00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of the application till realisation. ( 15 ) SINCE the claimant belongs to a labour class and obviously he may not be able to exercise that fiscal discipline for the said amount and also to see that the amount of compensation is not having frittered away it would be expedient to issue necessary directions as under: (1) The respondents herein/original opponents shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs. 5320. 00 with interest as aforesaid and proportionate costs thereon before the concerned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today. (2) The concerned Tribunal is directed to disburse the said additional amount with costs and interest as under: (A) The additional amount of compensation of Rs. 5320 with interest thereon shall be invested in a national security or in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period not less than ten years. (B) The original claimant shall be entitled to interest which shall accrue due thereon periodically on the said national security or fixed deposit receipt. (C) The original claimant shall be paid the amount of proportionate cost by account payee cheque. ( 16 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case the evidence on record and the aforesaid discussion the appeal is required to be partly allowed. ( 17 ) IN the result the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate cost. .