JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. No appearance is filed by respondent No. 2-driver of Transport Service. 2. This appeal is admitted by Division Bench of this Court on 13th August 1991. 3. In Civil Application No. 2661 of 1991 in First Appeal No. 818 of 1991, Division Bench of this Court has passed following order on 27th November 1991 which is quoted as under : "Rule. As the appeal filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is confined to Rs. 3,50,000/- only as on the date of the application, the remaining amount would be available for disbursement. The learned advocate for the applicant states that an amount of Rs. 7,72,206.90 was deposited on 14.10.1991. Hence, it is ordered that an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs which would include the interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-, will be invested in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank in the name of the Registrar for a period of 61 months. An amount of Rs. 1 lakh will be invested in a fixed deposit in the name of opponent No. 1 Shankerbhai Maganbhai Prajapati, in a nationalised bank for a period of 61 months. The remaining amount will be paid to the opponent No. 1 Shankerbhai Maganbhai Prajapati by an account payee cheque. The opponent No. 1 Shankerbhai will be entitled to receive periodical interest on the deposit of one lakh. The investment in the name of the opponent No. 1 Shankerbhai and the payment of remaining amount to him will not attract any requirement of security as no appeal has been filed in respect of the decretal amount. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs." 4. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw challenged impugned award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III (Main) at Ahmedabad Court No. 13 Exh.40 dated 19th March 1991. The claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,87,500/- with 6% interest from date of filing of claim petition till payment or realisation. In case of default amount is not deposited within three months, then, 12% interest is to be paid by appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw raised contentions that without relying upon panchnama, which was on record and only relying upon one eyewitness Mahebubkhan, question of negligence has been decided by claims tribunal. In case of default amount is not deposited within three months, then, 12% interest is to be paid by appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw raised contentions that without relying upon panchnama, which was on record and only relying upon one eyewitness Mahebubkhan, question of negligence has been decided by claims tribunal. He submitted that on date of accident, it was a rainy day and therefore, scooter was slipped and dashed with divider and therefore, accident had occurred and it was not dashed by AMTS bus. The claims tribunal has committed gross error in not considering and properly appreciating evidence of driver. He submitted that bus was not involved in accident and it was a sole negligence of claimant and claims tribunal has not considered even contributory negligence of claimant. There are three eye-witnesses, out of that, only one Mahebubkhan was examined. Rest of two eye-witnesses Natwarsing and other were not examined by claimant. He also submitted that amount of compensation is also excessive and on higher side. The claimant was remained continue in service after accident though 100% disability has been certified by Doctor. Therefore, there was no loss caused to claimant as he received salary through-out from date of accident. That aspect has not been properly considered by claims tribunal. He was permitted to perform light work by department. The claimant was PSI and receiving salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month, even, claims tribunal has considered Rs. 3,200/- per month salary of claimant. He also submitted that multiplier 15 is also on higher side looking to age of claimant 36 years. Except that, no other submission is made by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw on behalf of appellant. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Pranav Raval appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-claimant submitted that according to driver's evidence, scooterist was coming behind and dashed with AMTS bus and as per passenger's statement, there was no fault on the part of driver, but, no passenger was examined by driver in support of his evidence. The conductor was also not examined by appellant. He submitted that according to evidence on record, even in panchnama, scooter was going ahead about five feet from AMTS bus and bus dashed with scooter and due to that, claimant had fallen down and received injuries and became totally unfit. The conductor was also not examined by appellant. He submitted that according to evidence on record, even in panchnama, scooter was going ahead about five feet from AMTS bus and bus dashed with scooter and due to that, claimant had fallen down and received injuries and became totally unfit. His lower portion below chest was badly damaged and not in a working condition which requires one person help continuously for doing day-to-day work. He submitted that appeal is dismissed against claimant by order dated 29th August 2007 and appeal against driver is pending. The copy of order dated 29th August 2007 is annexed with Civil Application. The Hon'ble Court has passed following order on 29th August 2007 which is quoted as under : "Shri M.G. Nagarkar, learned counsel for the appellant. Office report is perused. Issue fresh notices to the respondents No. 1. Requisites be supplied within two weeks. Notices be prepared within one week and be handed over to the counsel for the appellant for effecting direct service. Notices be made returnable in ten weeks. If requisites are not supplied within two weeks, the appeal shall stand dismissed against the respondent No. 1 without reference to the Court." 6. Learned advocate Mr. Pranav Raval also submitted that requisites as directed by this Court on 29th August 2007 not supplied by appellant within two weeks. Therefore, according to order passed by this Court on 29th August 2007, appeal shall stand dismissed against respondent No. 1-present claimant without reference to the Court. 7. Against aforesaid facts, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw is not able to make any further submission, because, requisites as directed by this Court was not supplied within two weeks, therefore, appeal stands dismissed as per order passed by this Court on 29th August 2007 against claimant and now which remains pending against respondent No. 2 only. 8. The appellant has not filed any application to recall or restore first appeal against present claimant-respondent No. 1. There is nothing on record which suggests such application which was filed by appellant to restore first appeal against respondent No. 1. Therefore, facts remained that in respect to respondent No. 1, first appeal is dismissed by order dated 29th August 2007. 9. Apart from these facts, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has argued matter on merits before this Court. 10. The claimant has preferred claim of Rs. Therefore, facts remained that in respect to respondent No. 1, first appeal is dismissed by order dated 29th August 2007. 9. Apart from these facts, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has argued matter on merits before this Court. 10. The claimant has preferred claim of Rs. 7 lakhs with cost and prayed for 12% interest from date of claim petition. The accident occurred on 17th July 1989 at about 11-20 p.m. The claimant completed his duty at Dabgarwada Police Chowky under Dariyapur Police Station as a P.S.I. and started to go home on his scooter at Saijpur-Bogha. He was driving his scooter with great care and caution on left side of road with normal speed and at about 11-30 p.m., he came Naroda Highway road near Kalyan Police Chowky under Saher Kotda Police Station, Opponent No. 1 as driver of AMTS bus No. GTH-8842 route No. 128 from Kalupur to Naroda, came from back side of applicant via from Kalupur side towards Naroda side, driving said bus with excessive speed in rash and negligent manner endangering human life without blowing horn dashed front left portion of bus with rear portion of claimant's scooter with great impact. As a result of which, claimant fell down and sustained fracture of spinal cord and also ribs. Out of passengers sitting in bus, one constable Natvarsing and two other police constables had taken him and he was admitted in Shardaben Hospital. He did not received proper treatment in Shardaben Hospital and so, on 18th July 1989, he was shifted to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital in Ward F/2 and operation was also performed. The said accident had occurred on account of sole negligence of opponent No. 1 driver of AMTS bus during the course of employment of opponent No. 2. The claimant was serving in Dabgarwad Police Chowky of Dariyapur Police Station as Police Sub Inspector at monthly salary of Rs. 3,199=30 ps. He also used to get bonus and other benefits as declared by Government from time to time. According to claimant, there was fracture of 12th spine and fracture of ribs, portion below the chest became senseless and he suffered paralysis of both his legs. Even he could not pass urine and stool. 3,199=30 ps. He also used to get bonus and other benefits as declared by Government from time to time. According to claimant, there was fracture of 12th spine and fracture of ribs, portion below the chest became senseless and he suffered paralysis of both his legs. Even he could not pass urine and stool. According to claimant, from 17th July 1989 till date of treatment in hospital, three persons used to remain with him to serve and attend him as he was unable to perform any of his normal pursuit of daily life. The operation of 12th spine was carried out in Civil Hospital on 17th August 1989. It continued for about four hours the back bone of body and there were 20 to 22 stitches taken. He had to lay-down in reverse position on bad for 15 days and he had to suffer severe pain, shock and suffering. He was indoor patient in Civil Hospital from 18th July 1989 to 30th August 1989 and from 30th August 1989, he was shifted to para Plegia Hospital and he was taking treatment there. According to claimant, due to paralysis of both legs, he had totally lost his life and till life time, he will have to take support of other persons for all his requirements in the life including all normal pursuits, then for passing of urine, for passing of stool, etc., claimant has also contended that had there been no accident to him, he could have been promoted from PSI upto the rank of I.G.P., but, on account of accident and on account of fact that entire body below waist part has become paralytic. He is unable to serve as PSI. He had also to spend for medical treatment, medicines, transportation, special diet. For the purpose of medical treatment and transportation, he has spent about Rs. 9,000/- and for special diet, he had spend Rs. 5,000/-. In all, total claim was made about Rs. 7 lakhs with 12% interest. 11. The appellant has filed reply Exh.13 and denying averments made in claim petition and according to appellant, bus was going on correct side of road and bus has not knocked down the claimant by dashing from rear side of scooter but according to opponents, claimant was on his scooter and he was behind the bus. It had rain on that day and so, street lights were closed. It had rain on that day and so, street lights were closed. The claimant was behind bus i.e. on left side of bus and on account of rain, scooter of claimant slipped and he dashed with great impact on road divider stones 'Pali' and there was heavy noise. The 'Pali' was also broken down and at that time, bus had already travelled 8 to 10 feet distance. Accident had not occurred due to AMTS bus but as there was a noise, opponent No. 1 stopped bus and therefore, claimant had taken the bus number with a view to make a show that accident has occurred by this bus. The opponents specifically contended that accident has not taken place due to bus but claimant's scooter slipped and it dashed with great impact on road divider stones 'Pali' and sustained injuries. Therefore, claim of claimant has been denied totally by appellant. 12. Thereafter, claims tribunal has framed issue vide Exh. 28. The Issue Nos. 1 to 4 have been decided together by claims tribunal. Claimant has produced certain documents on record vide Exh. 19-copy of FIR, Exh. 20-copy of panchnama, Exh. 21-copy of injury certificate, salary certificate-Exh.22, follow-up card-Exh. 23, treatment report-Exh. 24 & 25, prescriptions Exh. 26, medical bills in all 41 amounting to Rs. 2,946=70 ps.,-Exh. 27, caster sheel Rs. 280/- Exh. 28, tricycle wheel for Rs. 1,250/- Exh. 29, fixing wheel chair bill for Rs. 950/- Exh. 30, pathology laboratory bill for Rs. 120/- Exh. 31, medical bill of Dr. Usha D. Shah, Consulting Physician for consulting fees Rs. 270/- Exh. 32, disability certificate of Dr. P.M. Vekaria-Exh.35 and also produced x-ray report and x-ray plates at Exh.17/2. The claimant was examined before claims tribunal vide Exh. 33 and also examined Dr. Vekaria vide Exh. 34 for proving disability certificate Exh. 35. The claimant was also examined one eyewitness Mahebubkhan Pathan Exh. 36 and appellant has examined driver on oath at Exh. 38. The claims tribunal has decided question of negligence considering evidence on record. The claimant was brought in the Court for giving evidence in wheel chair. The claimant has supported in his evidence the averments made in claim petition. 35. The claimant was also examined one eyewitness Mahebubkhan Pathan Exh. 36 and appellant has examined driver on oath at Exh. 38. The claims tribunal has decided question of negligence considering evidence on record. The claimant was brought in the Court for giving evidence in wheel chair. The claimant has supported in his evidence the averments made in claim petition. According to claimant's evidence, he was ahead on the date of accident from AMTS bus and bus has dashed to left hand side with scooter and due to that, scooter was fell down with claimant and right side portion of scooter fall near divider line and claimant felt near divider line. After giving dashed to scooter, bus also stopped there. He was not present when panchnama was recorded. The driver's evidence suggests that accident is not occurred by AMTS bus and he denied allegations made by claimant in his evidence. He also denied rash and negligent driving of AMTS bus. He was on correct side of road. The criminal case was lodged against bus driver. Thereafter, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati has made his submission on behalf of claimant and learned advocate Ms. Megha has also made her submission on behalf of AMTS bus and bus driver. 13. The claims tribunal has considered submissions made by both learned advocates and thereafter, claims tribunal has examined Issue Nos. 1 to 3 amongst Issue No. 1 in the affirmative and Issue Nos. 2 and 3 both in negative. The claims tribunal has considered evidence of claimant and also considered complaint filed by claimant which recorded by PSI, Saherkotda Police Station Exh. 19. The criminal complaint was registered at Saher Kotda Police Station being FIR CR No. I-261 of 1989 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 of IPC and under Section 116, 112 of MV Act. The scene of occurrence was shown and pointed out by police constable Natvarsing. The panchnama was produced at Exh. 20. Therefore, according to claims tribunal, complainant's evidence is crystal clear on the point that on 17th July 1989, he was serving at Dabgarwad Police Chowky as PSI and after finishing his duty, he started to go home on his scooter at Sejpur Bogha and he was driving the scooter on correct side of road with moderate speed and bus route No. 128 Kalupur to Naroda came from rear side and dashed on rear side of scooter. As a result of which, claimant fell down and sustained severe injuries. Mahebubkhan has also stated that after rain has stopped, he was standing outside Kalyan Police Chowky and he saw that one bus came from Kalupur side going towards Naroda tremendous speed and on scooter was about 5 feet ahead of bus. The front portion of bus collided with great impact to scooter. As a result of which, scooter driver fell down. He and other police constable rushed to scene of occurrence and found that scooter driver injured was none else but PSI Shri Prajapati. Even in cross-examination also, he has categorically stated that he shown a bus coming from distance of 10 feet. Scooter was 3 feet away from road divider 'Pali' and bus also was 3 feet away from road divider 'Pali' and bus dashed with scooter. The driver has also admitted in his evidence that he was a driver at a particular time on the said bus and according to him, at the bus stop, he halted bus, passengers got down and thereafter, he started bus again. According to driver, scooter was not ahead of him, but, according to him, scooter was on left rear side of the bus. He has also tried to explain that passengers stated that nothing had happened by said bus and so the bus was proceeded, even then, he insisted that on humanity point of view, it is his duty to go there and see the person fallen on the stone divider. This explanation which has been given by driver is found from far-fetched and not easily swallow-able or believable. The driver has not substantiated his say by examining any passenger to the effect that accident had not occurred due to this bus. The complainant claimant as well as constable Mahebubkhan Pathan have categorically stated and noted down bus number GTH-8842. There is no enmity between complainant and his witness Mahebubkhan with AMTS driver or the AMTS. There is no ulterior motive of claimant or his witness Mahebubkhan to falsely involve AMTS vehicle in this case. In FIR itself, bus No. GTH-8842 Route No. 128 Kalupur to Naroda AMTS bus has been categorically stated one constable Natvarsing was the passenger in said bus and he has pointed out the scene of occurrence to police as per panchnama and other two constables who came. In FIR itself, bus No. GTH-8842 Route No. 128 Kalupur to Naroda AMTS bus has been categorically stated one constable Natvarsing was the passenger in said bus and he has pointed out the scene of occurrence to police as per panchnama and other two constables who came. They are the constables of Kalyan Police Chowky and out of these three witnesses, claimant has examined police constable Mahebubkhan Pathan of Kalyan Police Chawky as eye-witness. The contentions raised by appellant have been considered by claims tribunal that out of three witnesses, one eye-witness was examined who has sufficiently proved rash and negligent driving of driver of AMTS bus and bus was involved in said accident. If Natvarsing was not examined by claimant, then, it can be examined by driver of AMTS Bus, but, they have not examined Natvarsing as a witness by appellant. Even conductor of AMTS bus was also not examined who could have drawn some light on the issue that passengers stated that nothing has happened by this bus and driver should proceed further with bus. The driver Ganpatbhai Parmar was prosecuted for said accident and he was released on bail. Therefore, in light of aforesaid evidence, claims tribunal has come to conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of AMTS bus driver-opponent No. 1 and contributory negligence was not proved by appellant before claims tribunal by leading proper evidence except driver. Accordingly, question of negligence has been examined by claims tribunal. 14. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw heavily relied upon Panchnama which was made at about 4-30 a.m. Two Panchas; one Babubhai Sevak and Kanjibhai Desai, remains present when panchnama was drawn by police. While drawing panchnama, facts were made it clear to Panchas that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of AMTS bus driver. Natvarsing-witness has shown the place of accident. The road is from eastern to western and width of road is 20 feet. On eastern side, road is going to Naroda and on western side, road is going to Kalupur. From place of accident, the distance upto footpath is 23 feet on northern side and 27 feet on southern side. At southern side on footpath, there is an electric pole being No. 6601829 situated at a distance of 27 feet. There are two feet distance between place of occurrence and divider. From place of accident, the distance upto footpath is 23 feet on northern side and 27 feet on southern side. At southern side on footpath, there is an electric pole being No. 6601829 situated at a distance of 27 feet. There are two feet distance between place of occurrence and divider. From the place of occurrence, on western side, there is 70 feet distance between Kalyan Police Chowky to southern side of road. At the distance of 8 feet on eastern side from the scene of offence, one AMTS bus No. GTH-8842 is in stationary condition having Body No. 798. On the southern side of the scene of offence, on scooter bearing No. GBE-3734 is lying. Part of clamp of the said scooter has become band and there are scratches on the left side thereof and portion of that side has been pressed and damaged. In view of aforesaid panchnama, contention was raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw before this court and copy thereof is supplied to this Court. While reading panchnama as it is, scooter was damaged from front portion and receiving damage on left side where that portion was became band and having scratches which suggests that scooter was dashed by AMTS bus from rear portion then damage to left side having scratches. The left side also became band to that accident. The story which has been developed by driver cannot be believed only on the ground that if scooter was behind bus, then, question of damage to scooter on left side does not arise, because, if scooter was behind bus, then, right side of scooter towards AMTS bus and in case if scooter was ahead up to 5 feet, then, front portion of AMTS bus dashed with left side with rear portion then having a scratches on left side portion was became band by AMTS bus. So, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that looking to panchnama, there was no mentioning or recording by Panchas that scooter was ahead of AMTS bus. This contention cannot be accepted, because, panchnama suggests condition of vehicle after accident. It will not give clear picture that how accident had occurred. So, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that looking to panchnama, there was no mentioning or recording by Panchas that scooter was ahead of AMTS bus. This contention cannot be accepted, because, panchnama suggests condition of vehicle after accident. It will not give clear picture that how accident had occurred. As against that, eye-witness Natvarsing's statement before police and complaint lodged by claimant and one witness Mahebubkhan's evidence are enough to prove rash and negligent driving of AMTS bus driver dashed with rear portion of scooter and left side of scooter which was became band and having various scratches. Therefore, there was a sufficient evidence with two witnesses and claimant as against, there was no positive evidence produced by appellant before claims tribunal except evidence of driver who was interested witness naturally he can make efforts to save himself from accident. The passengers were not examined to prove the explanation given by driver. Even conductor was not examined by appellant. Therefore, in light of this background of evidence which are on record and reasoning given by claims tribunal in Para 11, according to my opinion, finding given by claims tribunal in respect to negligence cannot be found faulted and such reasoning cannot consider to be contrary to record or baseless or perverse. On the contrary, claims tribunal has rightly appreciated evidence of claimant, evidence of Mahebubkhan, panchnama, FIR and statement of Natvarsing who was passenger in bus gave statement to police which suggests that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of AMTS bus driver. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw cannot be accepted as there was no contributory negligence proved by appellant against present claimant. 15. In respect of quantum, claims tribunal has considered evidence of claimant and medical certificate means disability certificate produced by claimant and also considered evidence of Dr. Vekaria produced before claims tribunal. The claims tribunal has considered income Rs. 3,200/- per month being a salary received by claimant which cannot consider to be contrary to record because his salary was Rs. 3,199=30 ps., per month at the time of accident. Therefore, round figure comes to Rs. 3,200/- per month income of salary. According to disability certificate, Dr. Vekaria has given 100% disability. Even in cross-examination, this fact has been proved looking to bodily condition of claimant. The evidence of Dr. 3,199=30 ps., per month at the time of accident. Therefore, round figure comes to Rs. 3,200/- per month income of salary. According to disability certificate, Dr. Vekaria has given 100% disability. Even in cross-examination, this fact has been proved looking to bodily condition of claimant. The evidence of Dr. Vekaria for proving disability received by claimant and he justified in his evidence in cross-examination that claimant has received 100% disability as discussed by claims tribunal in Para 13 and 14, which are quoted as under : "13. Applicant has also examined Dr. Prakash M. Vakaria on the point of disability exh.34. He stated that he examined Mr. Prajapati on 16-1-91 for the purpose of disability. He had seen all the papers of treatment and he came to know that on 17-7-89, applicant met with vehicular accident and there was fracture of 1th spine. He was operated in civil hospital on 17-9-89 and was discharged on 29-10-89. In both the legs, there was no movement. Below the umbilian region, there was complete loss of power and sensation in both the limbs. Unable to pass urine without catheter, difficulty in passing urine. On examination Dr. Vakaria found that there was healed scar of an operation of D-12 spinal on right side with gibbus of D-12 and tenderness over it. There was complete loss of sensation and power in both limbs below epigastrium i.e. D-9 spinal level. All reflexes absent in lower limbs. Healed bed sore at sacral region. On X-ray examination Dr. Vakaria found compression fracture of D-12 spine with anterior wedding and posterior displacement of vertebral body. From the above Dr. Vakaria came to a conclusion that on account of the injuries to D 12 spine, there was traumatic paraplegia below D 12 spine with loss of bladder and bowel function and so Dr. Vekaraia assessed the permanent partial disability of body as a whole at 100%. He has issued the medical certificate, it bears his signature, it is exh. 35. Dr. Vekaria positively stated that person with this injury cannot perform duty as PSI. Due to this injury applicant Mr. Prajapati cannot sit in chair for long time. In cross-examination, Dr. Vekaria stated that he had not examined Mr. Prajapati/applicant prior to 16-1-91 even then from the treatment papers and case-papers, he can positively say that the applicant has not recovery at all. Due to this injury applicant Mr. Prajapati cannot sit in chair for long time. In cross-examination, Dr. Vekaria stated that he had not examined Mr. Prajapati/applicant prior to 16-1-91 even then from the treatment papers and case-papers, he can positively say that the applicant has not recovery at all. Normally the patient is discharged after recovery but in exceptional cases when recover is not possible, he is discharged. Physio therapy is advised only to avoid future complications. Dr. Vekaria stated that even though both the hands, brain nose, ears, heart, lungs of the applicant are functioning properly, it is not considered for the purpose of counting the disability separately for separate part. In support, he relied on Dr. Kessler's book page 162 under the caption 'Spinal Cord injuries' and it is as under :- "Traditionally and almost universally thought the world, workmen's compensation, social security, and the veterans' pension systems evaluate spinal cord injuries with resulting perplegian and associated bowl and bellder dysfunction on an absolute basis, that is, as producing 100 per cent (total) permanent impairment, while it is recognised that exceptional circumstances may make a productive or fruitful life possible, this is not the experience of the majority of persons who have had spinal cord injury. Furthermore, even though, past skills and effective rehabilitation measures may help the injured person to achieve a reasonably satisfactory economic status, the tremendous physical, phychological, social and economic adjustment (bowel and bladder management, transportation problems, sexual problems, housing problems and possibility and continuous, constant attendance and supervision) still are faced. For the most part absolute incapacity value of 100 per cent is given to both paraplegia and quadriplegia, although in some compensation systems special allowance may be provided when either impairment requires that the individual must have constant attention. The American Medical Association, however, rather than follow these abolate value, has used the activities of daily living as a measure of impairment. It has divided spinal cord injuries into four categories :- 1. Partial paraplegia-with the subject able to walk without braces and with complete bowel and bladder control-50 percent impairment. 2. Partial paraplegia-with the subject having partial bowel and bladder control but able to walk without braces-80 percent impairment. 3. Total paraplegia-with the subject having no bowel or bladder control-95 percent impairment. 4. Quadriplegia-95 percent impairment." Dr. Vekaria also stated that even if another expert examined Mr. 2. Partial paraplegia-with the subject having partial bowel and bladder control but able to walk without braces-80 percent impairment. 3. Total paraplegia-with the subject having no bowel or bladder control-95 percent impairment. 4. Quadriplegia-95 percent impairment." Dr. Vekaria also stated that even if another expert examined Mr. Prajapati for the purpose of permanent partial disability, there will not be any change in the percentage. According to Dr. Vekaria as there was fracture to the D- 12 spine, the portion below the umbilious region suffered complete loss of power and sensation. 14. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Vekaris is at exh. 35 and it shows the following :- History of : vehicular accident on 17-7-89. : admitted in Shardaben Hospital and then transferred in Civil Hospital on 18-7-89 for fracture of D-12 spine with compete paraplegia. Complain of : Complete loss of power and sensation in both lower limbs below neval (umbilical) region. : unable to pass urine without catheter. : constipation-difficulty in passing stool no voluntary control. : Severe throbbing pain in back off and on at fracture sife. : having wheel chair life. On Examination : healed scar of an operation at D-12 spine level on right side with gib bus of D12 and tenderness over it. : complete loss of sensation and power in both lower limbs below epigestrium i.e. D-8 spinal level. : all reflexes absent in lower limbs. : healed bed sore at sacral region. X-RAY : Dorsolumber spine lat : compression fracture of D 12 spine with anterior wedging and posterior displacement of vertebral body. Impression : traumatic paraplegia below D 12 spine with loss of bladder and bowel function. Permanent residual disability (functional) assessed at 100% (hundred percent) body as a whole according to Kessler 1970." Dr. Vekaria had reffereed applicant Shankarbhai Prajapati to Shreeji X-ray Clinic and the report shows the following it is at Mark 17/2. : X-ray X-L Spine A.P. & Lt. : Compression wedging of D we verterbra is seen with reduction in weight and increase in density due to condensation. Compression is seen displaced and pushed posteriority into spinal canal with complete obliteration of anterio-posterior width of spinal canal at this level. Minimal localised kyphosis is seen at D 12 level. Old rib fracture is seen through posterior aspect of right 12th rib. Compression is seen displaced and pushed posteriority into spinal canal with complete obliteration of anterio-posterior width of spinal canal at this level. Minimal localised kyphosis is seen at D 12 level. Old rib fracture is seen through posterior aspect of right 12th rib. Old fracture is seen through right transverse process of L1 and L2 vertebral and fracture fragments are seen separate from rest of the vertebra. Other vertebral bodies and their appendinges appear normal posterior costephrenic recess in clear." 16. The claims tribunal on the basis of aforesaid evidence of Dr. Vekaraia who has justified 100% disability of claimant considers that claimant is unable to perform any normal pursuits without help of others and also unable to have sexual intercourse with his wife on account of pain, shock and suffering, he should be awarded at least Rs. 75,000/- amount relying upon decision of this Court. The claims tribunal has considered quantum in Para 17 while keeping in mind the fact that service of claimant was not terminated because of disability and he has not resigned from service, but, only light work has offered in a minimum salary of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month, but, for that also, nothing has been produced on record by appellant before claims tribunal. The claimant was considered to be totally unfit to discharge his duty as PSI for all purposes and merely light work has been offered and there is nothing on record that he received full salary from department after accident. This aspect has been taken care by claims tribunal while examining issue of quantum. The question of promotion to the post of Deputy S.P. or even S.P. has been considered by claims tribunal. Therefore, 100% disability amounts to a loss each month Rs. 3,200/- and looking to age of claimant 36 years rightly applied 15 multiplier. For that, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has not committed any error in deciding question of quantum as there was no contrary or rebuttal evidence produced by appellant against evidence of Dr. Vekaria and disability certificate where claimant was declared 100% disabled because of accident. While deciding quantum, physical 100% disability is also necessary to be considered which has been rightly considered by claims tribunal and for that, contentions which has been raised by learned advocate Mr. Vekaria and disability certificate where claimant was declared 100% disabled because of accident. While deciding quantum, physical 100% disability is also necessary to be considered which has been rightly considered by claims tribunal and for that, contentions which has been raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that he had received salary after accident, no evidence has been produced on record except bare word of claimant that light duty has been offered at the salary of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month. But, claims tribunal has rightly considered monthly salary Rs. 3,200/- for calculating quantum. For that, claims tribunal has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. The relevant discussion is made in Para 17 by claims tribunal concerned is quoted as under : "17. In order to prove the income, the applicant has produced the certificate exh. 22 issued by Police Inspector Dariapur Police station showing his salary for the month of June, 1989. His basix pay is Rs. 1820/- and the gross salary is Rs. 3199=30 ps., and after deduction the net amount payable Rs. 2629=30 ps. This shows that as PSI applicant was drawing gross salary of Rs. 3199=30 ps., i.e. Rs. 3200/-. It is the evidence on record that after the accident and looking to the injuries sustained by him and there is total paraplegia having no bowel or bladder control and the disability is given as 100% the applicant cannot serve as PSI. It is no doubt true that the applicant has not been removed from service nor he has resigned from the service but it is equally true that he cannot perform the function of PSI and naturally he cannot accept the duty of light nature and accept salary of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- though nothing to this effect has been brought on record. Even on this point, there is no documentary evidence on record except the bare words of the applicant that light duties offered at the salary of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month and as such his income has got to be taken at Rs. 3200/- per month. Applicant has stated in his evidence that had there been no accident, he could have been promoted as Deputy S.P., or even S.P., on the salary of Rs. 5400/-. Learned advocate Mr. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month and as such his income has got to be taken at Rs. 3200/- per month. Applicant has stated in his evidence that had there been no accident, he could have been promoted as Deputy S.P., or even S.P., on the salary of Rs. 5400/-. Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati for the applicant has not pressed and argued on this point and has taken the income as per Exh.22 only at Rs. 3200/- per month and so in view of this, the argument advanced by learned advocate Mrs. Megha that Rs. 900/- should be deducted from Rs. 3200/- as the personal expenses and petrol charges of the applicant cannot be sustained and income will have to be taken at Rs. 3200/- only and as there is 100% disability as per exh. 35 and the evidence of Dr. Vekaria the loss per month would be Rs. 3200/- and annual loss wold be Rs. 38,400/-. The age of the applicant is 36 years and so at least 15 multiplier can be given and so on account of future economic loss, the applicant is entitled to Rs. 5,76,000/-. On account of pain, shock and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Looking to the 100% disability paraplegia and complete loss of power and sensation in both the lower limbs below umbilicus raging with traumatic paraplegia below D-12 spine with loose of bladder and bobel function and in view of the decision as Rajara @ Raja Wamshyam v. Joitaram Amabhai Patel, 1982 (2) GLR 29 for pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, the applicant can be given Rs. 75,000/-. Loss of sexual enjoyment of life is included while considering this amount of pain shock and suffering also and as such the ruling 1973 ACJ page 216 (Punjab & Haryana) for awarding separate Rs. 20,000/- for loss of enjoyment of married life is not helpful. Now for attendant charges, special dies and transportation, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati for the applicant and learned advocate Smt. Megha for the opponents have agreed that Rs. 5,000/- is reasonable amount and the medical bills worth Rs. 5826/- have been produced from exhs. 27 to 32. The said amount be awarded to the applicant. Now for attendant charges, special dies and transportation, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati for the applicant and learned advocate Smt. Megha for the opponents have agreed that Rs. 5,000/- is reasonable amount and the medical bills worth Rs. 5826/- have been produced from exhs. 27 to 32. The said amount be awarded to the applicant. For actual loss of income, learned advocate Shri Prajapati has claimed for one year, but there is no supporting evidence or voucher to allow the same for one year. The accident occurred on 17-7-89 and he was admitted in the hospital on 18-7-89 and he was discharged from the hospital on 29-10-89, as per the follow-up card exh.23 and the case papers exh.24. The last entry in the case papers for follow-up treatment is 2-4-90 and it shows the endorsement 'patient has no recovery' as far paraplegia is concerned, Patient has stopped doing catherterization. He should be given for a months i.e. Rs. 25,600/-. Applicant is, therefore, entitled to claim total compensation Rs. 6,87,426/- i.e. Rs. 6,87,500/- as detailed below in the tabular form with proportionate costs. Future economic loss Rs. 5,76,000/- Pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment Rs. 75,000/- Attendant charges, special diet and transportation Rs. 5,000/- Medical bills Rs. 25,000/- Total... Rs. 6,87,426/- The applicant is awarded the huge sum of Rs. 5,76,000/- for future economic loss which normally cannot carry any interest as the said amount is not the amount which is spent by the applicant. In the same way, the sum of Rs. 75,000/- awarded for pain, shock and suffering is also not the amount actually spent by the applicant whereas the remaining amount about Rs. 36,000/- would carry the normal rate of interest by way of damages. Instead of bifurcating the interest on two counts separately and coupled with the fact that the applicant is getting lump-sum amount and the interest should be awarded on the entire awarded amount at 6% from the date of the application till payment of realisation. Hence, I answer issue No. 4 accordingly that the applicant is entitled to claim compensation Rs. 6,87,500/- from opponents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till payment or realisation. Rest of the claim which is not allowed is dismissed with no order as to costs." 17. 6,87,500/- from opponents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till payment or realisation. Rest of the claim which is not allowed is dismissed with no order as to costs." 17. In view of aforesaid discussion made by claims tribunal in Para 17, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 6,87,426/- in favour of claimant and also rightly awarded Rs. 5,76,000/- for future economic loss in favour of claimant. The claims tribunal has awarded only 6% interest because no interest has been awarded against the amount of Rs. 5,76,000/- which was awarded for future economic loss which normally cannot carry any interest at the said amount which has been spent by one claimant. Therefore, lump-sum amount of interest 6% has been rightly awarded, otherwise, claimant is entitled 12% interest which was available at the relevant time when accident occurred. Therefore, sufficient care has been taken by claims tribunal while deciding claim petition and awarded interest upon amount of compensation. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw cannot be accepted. Hence, same are rejected. The claims tribunal has rightly examined matter. For that, claims tribunal has not committed any error. The claims tribunal has given detailed reasons in support of its conclusion while appreciating evidence on record. For that, claims tribunal has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. 18. Therefore, there is no substance in present first appeal. Accordingly, present first appeal is dismissed. 19. Today, first appeal is dismissed, therefore, no order is required to be passed in Civil Application No. 10909 of 2009 filed by claimant for disbursement. Accordingly, civil application No. 10909 of 2009 is also disposed of. 20. However, it is directed to claims tribunal concerned to pay entire amount which are lying in FDR with claims tribunal concerned with accruing interest, if any, to respondent claimant-Shankerbhai Maganbhai Prajapati by account payee cheque immediately, without any delay, after proper verification. Appeal dismissed.