JUDGMENT : Y.B. Bhatt, D.P. Buch, JJ. This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the instance of the original claimant who challenges the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad. 2. The appellant-claimant claimed that on the date of the accident he was driving his scooter while accompanied by one pillion rider, on correct side of the road at a moderate speed, when a fiat car driven by the first opponent hit him on the rear right back side of his scooter while attempting to overtake the applicant. Thus, the applicant fell from the scooter and sustained grievous injuries. The applicant then had to take lengthy medical treatment involving two surgeries, that he suffered partial permanent disablement, that there was substantial economic loss suffered by him, expenses incurred for medical treatment, and various other claims under different heads were made in the claim petition. 3. On an over all assessment of the impugned judgment and award, we find that the appreciation of evidence on the part of the tribunal is very fair, and the conclusions drawn on the evidence on record are eminently reasonable and sustainable. The totality of the award, in our opinion, does not merit interference. 4. However, we shall deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant first submitted that his current income and the evidence pertaining thereto has not been correctly appreciated by the tribunal. In this context, he submitted that he was working as mechanic under the name and style of "Munna Automobiles", that he was doing the business on a footpath and having his tools and equipments in a tin box. It is an admitted fact that this business was not done in any built-up or even kachha premises. It would also appear that this business did not require any documentation such as bill books, or receipt books, let alone maintenance of accounts on any regular basis. In fact it is an admitted position that no documentary evidence has been led even indirectly to establish the extent of income. The only pertinent aspect we find in this regard is that although the claimant professed his income to be Rs.1500/- per month in the claim petition, during the course of his oral deposition he has increased the same by claiming Rs. 2000/- to 2500/- per month. The only pertinent aspect we find in this regard is that although the claimant professed his income to be Rs.1500/- per month in the claim petition, during the course of his oral deposition he has increased the same by claiming Rs. 2000/- to 2500/- per month. No doubt, the tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.1000/per month on an estimate, because on the facts and circumstances of the case only this method could be adopted. While we note that this is a very reasonable figure, we must also note that even if the tribunal had assessed the current income on the date of the accident at Rs.800/- per month we would still have accepted the same as reasonable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence worth the name as regards income. Obviously, therefore, the assessment must be based on the tribunal's perception and our perception of what such a footpath mechanic, doing his business on the footpath and with the tools and equipments in tin box would be earning in the month of June, 1992 (date of the accident). We, therefore, find that any income under this circumstance ranging from Rs.800/- to Rs.1000/- per month would have been reasonable according to us. Thus, there is no question of assessing the income of the applicant at any higher figure. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has then sought to challenge the finding of the tribunal that the disability should be 27% of the body as a whole. However, when the evidence was examined in greater detail we find that the tribunal was justified in observing that neither the doctor's certificate at Exh.31 nor the Orthopaedic Surgeon who was examined at Exh.30 specified as to whether the permanent disability attributable to the injured at 53% was in respect of the body as a whole or whether it was 53% in respect of the affected limb. In view of this evidence on record, the learned counsel for the appellant accepted that the determination of the tribunal assessing this disability at 27% body as a whole was reasonable. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant then sought to contend that the tribunal has not taken into account the future income or future prospects while computing the compensation awardable to the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant then sought to contend that the tribunal has not taken into account the future income or future prospects while computing the compensation awardable to the appellant. While it is true that the tribunal has not computed the loss of future income as a separate head or separate class of compensation, the compensation which has ultimately been quantified at Rs.42,120/- is under the head of future economic loss. When we look into the method of computation of future economic loss, we find that the tribunal has proceeded by treating the income of the appellant at Rs.1000/- per month, and on account of 27% disability, the loss of earning capacity is computed at Rs.270/- per month i.e. to say Rs.3,240/- per year. On the basis that his age shown in the injury certificate at Exh.42 is correctly shown as 45, the multiplier of 13 has been applied and compensation under the head of future economic loss has been computed at Rs.42,120/-. In the context of this submission we are of the opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the method of computation adopted by the tribunal, it was not necessary for the tribunal to assess the claim of the applicant separately under a separate head of future loss of income. The fact that percentage of disability has been taken into account, necessarily implies that this is the loss on account of the accident, which would naturally be applied to the current income, so as to arrive at a reduced future income. Thus, to submit that future loss of income has not been separately computed is merely a play of words. In any case we have already discussed hereinabove that even if his current income has been assessed at Rs.800/-per month, we would not have found it unreasonable. The fact that the tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.1000/-per month would, therefore, compensate the so-called claim of the appellant on account of future income. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant then sought to submit that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards pain, shock and suffering requires to be enhanced. The fact that the tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.1000/-per month would, therefore, compensate the so-called claim of the appellant on account of future income. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant then sought to submit that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards pain, shock and suffering requires to be enhanced. In this context, we are of the opinion that the tribunal has examined this aspect in detail in para 14 of the judgment and it was on account of this very factor that the tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- under this head. We do not find any question of principle involved where this amount would be required to be raised. 9. Learned counsel then sought to contend that future medical expenses have not been provided for. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant conceded that no claim was made in the claim petition under this head, and consequently no evidence on this aspect has also been led. Thus, it would not be in consonance with the evidence on record to award any amount under this head merely on the hypothesis that such an injury is bound to lead to future medical expenses, and that the same has not been provided for under the impugned award. 10. Although no contention has been raised in respect thereof, we also note that the tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- in all towards medical expenses and treatment, as per the evidence on record. The tribunal has further awarded Rs.6,000/- towards actual loss of income during his medical treatment, and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- under the combined heads of attendance charges, special diet, conveyance etc., although there is no direct evidence led in respect of such claim. 10.1. Thus, on the totality of the evidence on the record, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award is both fair and reasonable and in consonance with the evidence on record and does not require any interference by way of this present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed. Appeal dismissed.