JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nirav C. Thakkar appearing on behalf of appellant - claimant - Shailesh J. Mehta, learned AGP Mr. Anand L. Sharma appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State Authorities, learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta for learned advocate Mr. Hasmukh Thakker appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 - United India Insurance Company Limited and learned advocate Mr. N.S. Tahilramani appearing on behalf of Respondent No.6 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. The present appeal is preferred by appellant claimant for enhancement of compensation worked out by Claims Tribunal, Bharuch. The claimant has filed Claim Petition No.591 of 1983 (Main) claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from respondents. 3. The short facts of present case is that the accident took place on 7th October, 1983 on National Highway No.8 near Sidhdheshwari Oil Factory, Ankleshwar, at about 00-30 hours between Jeep Car No.GTI-7076 and Truck No.GTG-3348. The jeep car, at the material time, was driven by jeep driver Kashiram Gangaram, who is Respondent No.1. As a result of which, said accident had taken place. The claimant was working as Circle Police Inspector at Bharuch was also received injuries in the said accident. The jeep driver Kashiram, Police Constable Sureshbhai Bhavanbhai and inmate of jeep were received injuries. The said jeep car is of the ownership of I.G.P., State of Gujarat - Respondent No.2. It was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited - Respondent No.3. The Truck No.GTG-3348 was in stationary condition as it had met with an accident half an hour prior to present accident with Truck No.GTG-2221. Respondent No.4 is a driver of Truck No.GTG-3348 and Respondent No.5 is owner of said truck and said truck was insured with Respondent No.6 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 4. The claimant Shri Mehta initially filed a petition for compensation of Rs.9,999/-, which was subsequently enhanced upto Rs.3 lakhs and after obtaining disability certificate, it was enhanced upto Rs.5 lakhs. It is alleged that on 6th October 1983, Shri Mehta, Circle Police Inspector, Bharuch was allotted duty to chase one oil tanker involved in dacoity of furnace oil and was in the pilot jeep No.GTI-7076. It is alleged that on 6th October 1983, Shri Mehta, Circle Police Inspector, Bharuch was allotted duty to chase one oil tanker involved in dacoity of furnace oil and was in the pilot jeep No.GTI-7076. The said jeep was driven by Respondent No.1 while coming from Ankleshwar to Bharuch side with an excessive speed, in a rash and negligent manner and endangering human life, and at 00-30 hours on 7th October 1983, near Sidhdheshwari Oil Mills, it dashed on rear side of Truck No.GTG-3348 standing on left side of road, without back-light or reflector. The said truck was kept by truck driver carelessly and without any sign either back parking light or reflectors and as a result of which, Jeep No.GTI-7076 dashed with back side of truck and claimant - Shri Mehta sustained injuries. 5. The claimant was initially removed to Civil Hospital, Bharuch but as there was no facility of Orthopedic Surgeon, he was removed to hospital of Dr. Sheth where he was treated and discharged on 25th October 1983. The plaster was removed on 22nd November 1983. In the opinion of Dr. Sheth, claimant had permanent disablement. There was continuous pain and therefore, in April 1984, claimant approached Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. Dave in Ankleshwar and ultimately, Dr. Dave advised him to go to Bombay under treatment of Dr. K.B. Chaubal. The claimant was operated upon in Bombay by Dr. Chaubal in the year 1984 and remained in hospital for 15 days and thereafter, he had to go for follow-up treatment for 6 to 7 times in taxi. Thereafter, the second operation was performed by Dr. Chaubal and claimant had to stay as an indoor patient for again 15 days and he had to go for follow-up treatment thrice. The claimant in all the hospitals and for all the times required two persons with him as attendants and he had to bear their expenses. The claimant had also to spent heavily for operations, medicines and medical treatment. Dr. Dave gave him certificate about 60% permanent partial disablement and according to claimant, he is unable to walk without crutches and unable to seat with cross legs and squatting. Total Earned Leaves have been spent by claimant which comes to 159 days which is a loss of leaves. In short, total Rs.5 lakhs amount has been claimed with 12% interest. Dave gave him certificate about 60% permanent partial disablement and according to claimant, he is unable to walk without crutches and unable to seat with cross legs and squatting. Total Earned Leaves have been spent by claimant which comes to 159 days which is a loss of leaves. In short, total Rs.5 lakhs amount has been claimed with 12% interest. The present appeal is preferred by claimant claiming Rs.4,31,840/- for the purpose of court fees and advocate's fee. 6. The Claims Tribunal, Bharuch has decided question of negligence on the basis of evidence i.e. 60% negligence of jeep driver -Kashiram and 40% negligence of Respondent No.4 - driver Bhailalbhai Somabhai Tadvi. Respondent No.3 - United India Insurance Company Limited of jeep where claimant was travelling having a limited liability of Rs.15,000/-and rest of amount is to be recovered from Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The total amount of compensation which has been awarded by claims tribunal comes to Rs.1,13,600/-, the details of which have been given at Page 36 of award of claims tribunal as under : 7. In light of these facts, this Court has to consider only that in light of injuries received by claimant whether amount of compensation which has been worked out by claims tribunal is just, proper and reasonable or not ? And whether any scope for enhancement of compensation or not ? 8. While determining this question, it is necessary to note the evidence of claimant which has been given before claims tribunal, it has been discussed and referred by claims tribunal in Para 15 which is quoted as under : The applicant is therefore, entitled to claim compensation of Rs.1,13,600/- as detailed below: “15. Shri Mehta has stated that due to accident, he sustained injuries, he was taken to Civil Hospital, Bharuch, but as there was no facilities for Orthopaedic surgeon, he was taken to Dr. Sheth Hospital wherein he was indoor patient from 7/10/1983 to 25/10/1983. He was advised not to do movement for six moths. As he did not feel any improvement, he consulted Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. Dave at Ankleshwar and Dr. Dave advised him to approach Dr. Dholakia at Bombay. Or5thopaedic Surgeon Dr. Dave informed the applicant that he may not be cured and so, the applicant approached Dr. Chaubal and first operation was performed in June, 1984 and Second operation was performed in September, 1985. Dave at Ankleshwar and Dr. Dave advised him to approach Dr. Dholakia at Bombay. Or5thopaedic Surgeon Dr. Dave informed the applicant that he may not be cured and so, the applicant approached Dr. Chaubal and first operation was performed in June, 1984 and Second operation was performed in September, 1985. The second operation was performed for the purpose of tightening the ligaments. He had also taken physiotherapy exercise in Shevashram Hospital, Bharuch and has also purchased for the purpose of exercise keep fit cycle. At the time of the accident, he had to take 159 days leave. When the first operation was performed by Dr. Chaubal, he had taken 54 days leave and for the second operation he had taken 45 days leave. In 1983 he was drawing Rs.1300/- and in 1984 he was drawing Rs.1400/- and in 1985 he was drawing Rs.1700/-. According to him, on the date of the deposition, his salary ins Rs.2700/- plus Rs.450/- = 3150/-. After the first operation, he had gone for follow-up treatment for six times from Bharuch to Bombay, to Dr. Chaubal and for each trip, he had spent Rs.1200/-taxi fare. Receipts have been produced at mark 41/4/1 to 41/4/6 issued by Musa Ahmed Patel and the taxi Number is GRV 8025. Musa Ahmed Patel, the person who has issued the receipts has not been examined as witness to substantiate these documents. After the second operation he had gone thrice for follow-up treatment; once he had gone in the 1st Class, from Bharuch to Bombay and for three tickets, he had spent about Rs.230/- to Rs.240/-. and the tickets are produced at mark 63/2. There are from Bharuch to Bombay Central, each Rs.76/-. At Bharuch when he was indoor patient in Dr. Sheth's Hospital, two attendants served him, and he had to spend Rs.40/- per day, in the same way, after first operation at Bombay, two persons stayed with him and he had to spend Rs.60/- per day ad the second operation in 1985 two persons stayed with him and he had to spend Rs.75/-per day. He had also to take special diet at Bharuch as well as at Bombay and at Bharuch, per day he spend Rs.25/- and at Bombay Rs.30/- per day. For the treatment, medicines, Doctor's fees, he had spent Rs.32,000/-. He had purchased the 'Keep fit cycle' for Rs.1200/-. As per the advice of Dr. He had also to take special diet at Bharuch as well as at Bombay and at Bharuch, per day he spend Rs.25/- and at Bombay Rs.30/- per day. For the treatment, medicines, Doctor's fees, he had spent Rs.32,000/-. He had purchased the 'Keep fit cycle' for Rs.1200/-. As per the advice of Dr. Saraiya the applicant may have to go for future operation abroad (Ex.126). and for lodging and Boarding in a hotel, 100 Dollars per day. He has also stated that he was shortening of leg by ¾ - and it gives continuous pain. He is unable to sit with cross-legged and squatting. He is a direct recruit at P.S. I. in 1982. he has been given cash and certificates, 18 rewards. According to him, the direct recruit P.S.I. Can become Dy. S. P. after nine years and as Dy. S. P. he can get Rs.3500/- per month and he can become D.S.P. after 8 to 9 years and he can get Rs.4500/-. According to him, the age of superannuation is 50 years, but he can get the job in private sector as security officer and he can get Rs.3500/- to Rs.4000/-per month. At the age of 51 years, 55, and 58, for the purpose of extension of service, physical fitness certificate from the medical Board is to be produced, and if he is physically unfit, extension is not given. He has also stated that on 20/7/88 seven police inspectors have been promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and they all are junior to him. Shri T. M. Parmar is junior to him. He is promoted as Dy. S. P. Surat. Shri E. M. Khan is Junior to him. He is promoted as Dy. S. P. No reasons are given as to why he is not promoted as Dy. S. P. He is also not communicated any adverse remarks. In the cross-examination by the L. A. Shri. Mamlatdarna the applicant has stated that he has received Rs.22,000/- from his Insurance Co. He has examined Dr. Dave as his witness. The accident occurred during the course of employment and he had to take leave at his credit. In the cross-examination by L. A. Shri. Gandhi, the applicant stated that Dr. Sheth is one of the leading Orthopaedic Surgeon in Bharuch, and he is senior to Dr. Dave. He has stated that he has no confidence in the treatment of Dr. The accident occurred during the course of employment and he had to take leave at his credit. In the cross-examination by L. A. Shri. Gandhi, the applicant stated that Dr. Sheth is one of the leading Orthopaedic Surgeon in Bharuch, and he is senior to Dr. Dave. He has stated that he has no confidence in the treatment of Dr. Chaubal. He admitted that when he resumed duty, he has produced the physical fitness certificate. He was transferred from Bharuch, on the same post in other city, having more responsibility. He has not informed about any notes by way of adverse remarks. He admitted that he has no evidence to show that he is not promoted as Dy. S. P. because of these injuries. He denied that Shri. T. M. Parmar who is promoted as Dy. S. P. is of backward class. He admitted that Shri. M. E. Khan promoted as Dy. S. P. is Muslim, of minority community. He has not filed any writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for promotion as Dy. S. P. He has also admitted that he is presently continued in the active service on the same Post.” 9. The claimant has also examined Dr. Dipak Dave vide Ex.122 which has been discussed by claims tribunal in Para 16, which is quoted as under : “16. The applicant has also examined in support of his case Dr. Dipak Dave at Ex.122. In 1984 the applicant approached for his knee injury. He had completely unstable and deformed right knee joint. The applicant was advised to approach Dr. Chaubal at Bombay. He is esteemed will-known Orthopaedic surgeon at par with Dr. Dholakia. Dr. Dave assisted Dr. Chaubal, on 11/6/1984 in repairing ligament of the applicant. Middle semi-lunar certiledge of right knee joint was removed and critiat ligament was repaired. Thereafter, second operation was performed and laternal co-lateral ligament was repaired and follow-up treatment was given by Dr. Dave under instructions of Dr. Chaubal. The letter addressed y Dr. Chaubal is Ex.123. Dr. Dave has also issued the disability certificate Exh.124 showing the following: 1. Lateral instability, and tenderness right knee. 2. He has shortening of ? inch, of right lower extremity. 3. Muscular waisting on the right side by 0.7 inches 4. He also has developed arthritis on the left side of his body. 5. He also has lumber spondylosis. Dr. Dr. Dave has also issued the disability certificate Exh.124 showing the following: 1. Lateral instability, and tenderness right knee. 2. He has shortening of ? inch, of right lower extremity. 3. Muscular waisting on the right side by 0.7 inches 4. He also has developed arthritis on the left side of his body. 5. He also has lumber spondylosis. Dr. Dave estimated permanent partial disability at 60%. it may be pointed out that as against this, medical board has assessed disability of 50%. as per Exh.119 Dr. Dave stated that in future, there will be future deterioration due to secondary arthritis and longevity of life also decrease. Dr. Saraiya has sent his opinion from America on reference of applicant's case to him and he has estimated the amount of expenditure. The letter is produced at Ex.126. In the cross-examination by the learned Advocate Shri Mamlatdarna, Dr. Dave stated that in the certificate, he has nowhere mentioned that he assisted Dr. Chaubal, in performing operation on the applicant. In the certificate dt. 26/3/1986 he has mentioned that applicant was treated as outdoor patient. In cross-examination by the L. A. Shri. Gandhi, Doctor admitted that the applicant is a police officer in Gujarat State and he is in active service, as the police officer. He has resumed duty under his advice. Dr. denied that after the applicant resumed duty, he did not complain to him about the pain, disability and the discomfort. Dr. Dave has also admitted the clinical findings of Ex.119 arrived at by the Medical board are the same as per his finding, but there is difference in percentage of disability. He assessed at 60%. and the medial Board assessed at 50%. The applicant is able to walk on the even ground without any support.” 10. The claimant has also examined Shri K.S. Zala at Ex.19 as discussed in Para 17 which is quoted as under : “17. The applicant has also examined Shri K. S. Zala at Ex.109, with a view to show that after retirement as Dy. S. P. they are employed as security officer. Shri Zala has retired as Dy. S. P. and after retirement on and from 1/4/1986 he is serving as Security officer in Mihir Textile at a monthly salary of Rs.3000/- plus bonus. S. P. they are employed as security officer. Shri Zala has retired as Dy. S. P. and after retirement on and from 1/4/1986 he is serving as Security officer in Mihir Textile at a monthly salary of Rs.3000/- plus bonus. He has produced the certificate Ex.110 for the month of October, 1987 from Mihil Textile showing that he gets Rs.3,000/- per month. He could not say as to whether, after retirement, applicant would not get such a private service. He may get such private service.” 11. The medical certificate issued by Civil Hospital is produced at Ex.90 which shows the following injuries as referred in Para 18 which is quoted as under : “18. The policy of the Jeep car No.GTI 7076 is produced at Ex.60 and Ex.86 and Ex.87. The medical certificate issued by the Civil Hospital is produced at Ex.90 and it shows the following: 1. Bleeding from nose wound. C.L.W. ? CM x ? CM x ? CM at Haro-labial juncture. 2. CLW ? x ? CM at left side of nose. 3. Swelling right knee right let and upper 1/3rd of Rt. Leg. X-ray Rt. Knee shows, crack Fracture of right upper 1/3rd tibia. Blunt injury over chest, with tenderness. The applicant has also produced the leave salary certificate for the period from 7/10/1983 to 5/12/1983 (Ex.95), 8/6/1984 to 31/7/1984 (Ex.94), 16/9/1985 to 31/10/1985 (Ex.93) and he resumed duty on and from 1/11/1985. The salary certificate for January, 1987 is at Ex.96 and the salary under the revised scale 2000-3200, his pay is fixed in the revised scale at Rs.2120/-. And the date of next increment is dt. 1/9/1986 i.e. Rs.2180/-and on 1/9/1987 Rs.2240/-(Ex.107). He has produced salary certificate of February, 1988 Ex.106 in the salary is shown as Rs.2240/- Plus D. A. Rs.291/-. Rest are the allowance only, showing the gross total Rs.3211/- and after deducting Rs.510/- Net Rs.2701/-. The witness examined on behalf of the applicant Shri. Zala after his retirement, serves as Security Officer, he has produced the emoluments certificate for October, 1987 (Ex.110) showing the gross earning of Rs.2971=40 ps. and net payment of Rs.2706/-. Ex.119 is the report of the Medical board, in respect of the applicant showing the disability of 50% as follows: “Shri. S. J. Mehta, P. I. had been examined by the standing medical board, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad certificate No.SMB/C/IP/1135/88 dt. and net payment of Rs.2706/-. Ex.119 is the report of the Medical board, in respect of the applicant showing the disability of 50% as follows: “Shri. S. J. Mehta, P. I. had been examined by the standing medical board, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad certificate No.SMB/C/IP/1135/88 dt. 8/12/87 is enclosed herewith in duplicate, as under: “At present, Fracture tibia upper end with terminal 2nd degree restricted movement, upper ligaments instability and denu farum of 10 & Lypoasthsis in infra patellar region. Wasting of guadrings 1/2 - and lib shortening of 3/4 . Pt. Cannot sit cross legged and cannot sit in squatting position. Permanent Disability assessed at 50% (fifty percent.). The applicant has also produced discharge card at Ex.120 issued by Dr. Chaubal and the injury is shown in the diagrams. Dr. Deepak Dave has also issued the certificate at Ex.124. dt. 26/3/1986 showing the injuries and the disability. He examined the applicant in April 1984 and found the following. He had an absolute unstable knee joint, with depressed fracture of tibial condyle and all the 4 ligaments were cut i.e. (1) Medical Collateral-ligament (2) Lateral Collateral ligament (3) Medical semilunar cartilage tear (4) Both cruciate ligaments were also torn. At this particular juncture, he was unable to walk without support. At present, I have examined him and found that he has lateral instability and pain, His movements are also restricted which will be further restricted after surgery. He has shortening by about 3/4 and muscle wasting of ? thigh by 0.7. Also due to transfer of weight of his body, on the normal limb, will result in early arthritis of normal hip and knee and lumber spondyloses. His permanent final disability is put up at 60%. He has produced in bunch, the medical bills and Doctor's receipts. They are not exhibited as the authors of the documents are not examined. 12. The finding given by claims tribunal while considering evidence on record in determining compensation in respect of present claimant has been discussed in Para 23, which is quoted as under : “23. As per the evidence adduced in the matter, the applicant was serving as Police Inspector at Bharuch. 12. The finding given by claims tribunal while considering evidence on record in determining compensation in respect of present claimant has been discussed in Para 23, which is quoted as under : “23. As per the evidence adduced in the matter, the applicant was serving as Police Inspector at Bharuch. There was dacoity of 10,000 liters of furnace oil in respect of Oil Tanker No.GTB 4917 and the dacoits had fled away with the tanker towards Surat side and this information was given to the applicant by P.S.I. Gohil and the applicant had to follow- the same to chase the Tanker. The applicant had therefore, proceeded in a Pilot Jeep car GTI 7076 with staff. It was dirven by Kashinath Gangaram opponent no.1. The Tanker was already chased near “Garib Nawaz Hotel and while returning the Jeep, dashed on the side of the stationery truck No.GTG 3348. This truck was stationery on account of the previous accident with another truck no. GTG 2221. The applicant sustained injuries. The applicant was initially treated in Dr. Sheth Hospital, where he was indoor patient for 18 days in Dr. Sheth Hospital. He was advised to remain at him for six months. But, as he did not feel better, he approached Dr. Dave who directed him to approach Orthopaedic Surgeon at Bombay and ultimately he approached Dr. Chaubal and he was first operated in 1984 and he remained in the Hospital for 15 days. Thereafter, he had to go for follow up treatment 6 to 7 times. He has produced the receipt 41/4/1 to 41/4/6 each showing the payment of Rs.1200/- to Musa Ahmed Patel. Bombay to Bharuch to and fro. Musa Ahmed Patel is not examined to prove these receipts. The applicant is bound to prove at least these documents of taxi fare by examining the author of the documents. He has not led any evidence to prove the payment of rs.1200/-taxi charges to Musa Ahmed Patel, Bombay Trips for six times. These are not the medical bills or vouchers the amount of which can be allowed without examining the author of the documents. The medial bills and vouchers are allowed, because of the prolonged treatment, sickness and the medicines were prescribed, as obtaining of bills and vouchers of such items, when injured is lying in the hospital in the grave condition, cannot be expected. The medial bills and vouchers are allowed, because of the prolonged treatment, sickness and the medicines were prescribed, as obtaining of bills and vouchers of such items, when injured is lying in the hospital in the grave condition, cannot be expected. As far as these taxi bills are concerned, the applicant is required to adduce clear and cogent evidence by proving the actual payment. He has to establish that he had travelled six times to and fro in the taxi and so, on this count, reasonable amount of 1st Class train fare can be awarded. Second operation was performed in 1985 and he was indoor patient for 15 days. Compensation on account of expenses of the relatives, as attendants, cant be worked as under: For his stay in Dr. Sheth Hospital at Rs.40/- per day; Rs.720/-and for first operation at Bombay Rs.60/- per day Rs.900/-; for second operation 15 days, Rs.75/- per day, Rs.1125/-; Hence Rs.2745/-(Rs.720+900+1125 = 2745) Say Rs.2750/- is awarded. The applicant had to take leave because of his prolonged sickness, operations and he was on leave from 7/10/1983 to 5/12/1983 as per Ex.95 for about tow months and as per the Slip mark 84/1, for the month of August, 1984, his emoluments are Rs.1593=80 ps. The applicant has deposed in his evidence that in 1983 he was getting Rs.1300/- per month, in 1984 he was getting Rs.1400/- per month and in 1985 Rs.1700/- per month, and so he is entitled to be compensated for the leave salary taken by him. For the year 1983 he is entitled to Rs.2600/-, then 1984 he was on leave from 8/6/84 to 31/7/1984 and so he is entitled to Rs.2100/- and for the year he was on leave from 16/91985 to 31/10/1985 and he has resumed duty on 1/11/1985 as per Ex.93. He is therefore entitled to Rs.2550/-. Hence, on this count he is entitled to Rs.7250/-. (Rs.2600+2100+2550=7250/-). As regards the Transport Charges, as I have said earlier, he has not proved the taxi fare paid by him. He has produced three tickets of 1st Class showing the payment of Rs.240/-. Looking to the injuries, sustained by him and the treatment taken by him, and the treatment taken by him, he must have gone to Bombay for follow-up treatment on few occasions and so on the head of transport charges, he may be awarded Rs.4000/-. He has produced three tickets of 1st Class showing the payment of Rs.240/-. Looking to the injuries, sustained by him and the treatment taken by him, and the treatment taken by him, he must have gone to Bombay for follow-up treatment on few occasions and so on the head of transport charges, he may be awarded Rs.4000/-. On account of special diet, looking to the fact that he was indoor patient for about 48 days, and he was also operated twice, and so on the count of special diet Rs.1500/-. For medicines, bills, vouchers, Doctor's fees, etc. he has produced the bills. The bills are not admitted. He has also not proved the bills by calling authors of the bills but as I have said earlier, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, reported in 1987 A.C.J. p.519 (supra) even though no bills, no evidence for purchase medicines, blood, Doctor's fee, fruits, and other items, are produced, but if the claimant satisfies that he had incurred expenses, then that amount is to be allowed. He has produced the bills worth Rs.12,263=15 ps. (mark 3/1 to 3/19) and about Rs.15,860/-(mark 41/3/1 to 41/3/49 and 41/7) cycle bill. He is therefore entitled to Rs.28,100/-. On account of gratuitous service rendered by the attendants, he is entitled to Rs.2,000/-as per the decision reported in 1979 A.C.J. 264 (supra). As regards the future economic loss, he had, as per the opinion of the Medical Board, Ex.119, 50% disability and as per the certificate of Dr. Dave 60% disability. He has admitted in his own evidence in cross-examination that he is in the active service on the same post even after the accident, he is given the charge in the City, bigger than Bharuch. It is not the case that because of this disablement, he could not work as C. P. I. He has subsequently stated that seven persons who are Junior to him, are promoted Dy. S. P. He has not produced any order showing the promotion, to substantiate his say nor he has examined any of them. It is not the case that because of this disablement, he could not work as C. P. I. He has subsequently stated that seven persons who are Junior to him, are promoted Dy. S. P. He has not produced any order showing the promotion, to substantiate his say nor he has examined any of them. He has also admitted that he is not communicated any adverse remarks nor he has been informed that he is not promoted on account of the injuries, and so in view of the evidence and clear admission by the applicant himself, the ruling relied upon by the L. A. Shri. Mehta, for the applicant 1981 A. C. J. p. 53 (Niranjan Ambalal Patel (SUPRA), is not applicable. The applicant has not adduced any clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence showing that the Government has decided or resolved not to promote him to the Higher cadre because of the injuries sustained by him and/or because of the disability. On the contrary, the evidence is otherwise, that he is continued in the same post. He is not given any other light Job., as per the decision of 22 G. L. T. p.63 (supra) relied upon by L. A. Shri. Gandhi. In the case, the claimant was the P.S.I. and he had also 50% disability. Even his chances for promotion were affected and in that case, the future economic loss was assessed at Rs.2400/- per year and 12 multipliers were given. In the case of the present applicant from his evidence itself, there is no loss of earning capacity. Eventhen, taking this case as the basis, if the future economic loss is assessed at Rs.200/- per month, the annual loss would be Rs.2400/- and looking to his age, and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 24 G. L. T. (SC) page.55 Smt. Jyotsna Dey & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. 15 multiplier would be applied to the present case. The future economic loss would be worked out to Rs.2400 x 15 = Rs.36,000/-. For future operation, as per the letter of Dr. Saraiya, Ex.126, the applicant may have to go for future operation, at abroad, and so on this count, he has prayed for Rs.10,000/-. This is only imaginary, but as it is supported by letter of Dr. The future economic loss would be worked out to Rs.2400 x 15 = Rs.36,000/-. For future operation, as per the letter of Dr. Saraiya, Ex.126, the applicant may have to go for future operation, at abroad, and so on this count, he has prayed for Rs.10,000/-. This is only imaginary, but as it is supported by letter of Dr. Saraiya, Ex.126, the said amount may be awarded on this count and on this count, he is awarded Rs.7,000/-. The applicant had to undergo two operations at Bombay and treatment at Bharuch. He was indoor patient approximately for Rs.48 days and he had to take leave approximately for 160 days and as per the Judgment of Babu Mansa Vs. Ahmedabad Municipality 1978 A.C.J. p. 485, Rs.15,000/- were given for pain and suffering, and he had fracture of right leg, insertion of nail, indoor patient for four months, shortening of leg and permanent disability. In the present case also the applicant had fractures of tibia upper end and he had also shortening of let by 3/4? Inch and limping, unable to squat and sit cross-legged. He cannot run, and the fall in the value of money, leaves to the continuous re-assessment of the award on this count. It would be quite reasonable to award him on this count of pain, shock and suffering Rs.25,000/-.” 13. In light of aforesaid facts as discussed by claims tribunal whether amount of compensation which has been awarded in respect of each head is found to be just and proper or not ? 14. Learned AGP Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that there is no loss of future earning to claimant, because, he produced fitness certificate after his treatment was over and thereafter, he was taken on job and he worked upto retirement and his promotion is not adversely affected because of injuries received by claimant and there is no evidence shown by claimant before claims tribunal that Government has decided or resolved not to promoted him to higher cadre because of injuries sustained by him or because of disability. According to him, on the contrary, evidence is otherwise that he was continued in said post and no light work was given to him. According to him, on the contrary, evidence is otherwise that he was continued in said post and no light work was given to him. Therefore, he submitted that there is no loss of earning capacity because he received injury during the course of employment, but, remained in service and received salary which has been revised upto the end of service. Therefore, learned AGP Mr. Sharma submitted that claims tribunal has rightly examined matter on the basis of evidence on record and details reasoning is given by claims tribunal and amount in respect of each head properly assessed by claims tribunal as well as medical evidence has been considered, but, documents in respect of medical papers including medical receipts and medical bills are not exhibited, because, authors of documents are not examined by claimant, therefore, claims tribunal has properly considered evidence on record, injuries caused to claimant as well as opinion of Medical Board as 50% permanent disability to claimant, therefore, no error is committed by claims tribunal in deciding claim petition filed by claimant, hence, no interference in required by this Court. He also submitted that claims tribunal has also rightly considered income of claimant as in the year 1983 at the time of accident, claimant was drawing Rs.1300/-per month salary and in the year of 1984, claimant was drawing Rs.1500/- per month salary and in the year of 1985, claimant was drawing Rs.1700/- per month salary and on the date of deposition, claimant was drawing salary Rs.2700/- + Rs.450/- = Rs.3150/-. Therefore, on that basis, future loss of income Rs.200/-has been rightly considered by claims tribunal while calculating loss of future earning in favour of claimant, even for that also, no error is committed by claims tribunal and 15 multiplier has been rightly applied looking to age of claimant. He further submitted that claims tribunal has also awarded some amount for future operation and accordingly, Rs.25,000/- also properly assessed for 15. Learned advocate Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar appearing on behalf of appellant - claimant Shri S.J. Mehta submitted that in the year of 1985, claimant was drawing salary of Rs.3150/- per month which has not been taken into account by claims tribunal while considering 50% disability found by Medical Board which has been accepted by claims tribunal, but, compensation is not worked out on that basis. He also submitted that a long treatment having more than two operations remaining as an indoor patient as well as one operation at Ankleshwar and another operation at Bombay and frequently going for follow-up treatment, for that, amount of compensation for pain, shock and suffering awarding Rs.25,000/- is on very much lower side. He submitted that claimant has to remain unable to enjoy complete life as it was enjoyed prior to accident and due to that inability, pain, shock and suffering. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court for enhancement as claimed by claimant may be he was remained continue in service, but, his physical defect occurred because of accident also remained with him, so, as a Circle Police Inspector, he was not able to work hard and effectively, therefore, it is resulted into denial of promotion to claimant as seven juniors were promoted even though his case was not considered for promotion, because of disablement. He submitted that even after retirement also, claimant can get job as a Security Officer in any private organization even though future prospect is also lost due to injuries. The medical bills, receipts from Doctors though produced, but, not exhibited because, person means authors has not been examined. Therefore, that amount has not been awarded by claims tribunal to claimant. The expenses which has been occurred for attending Doctors visited frequently at Ankleshwar, Bharuch and Bombay as well as expenses of two attendants who remained with claimant was also not properly assessed by claims tribunal. The follow up treatment for six times from Bharuch to Bombay before Dr. Chaubal and for each trip, he was having expenses of taxi fare and because of he was not able to produce receipts from taxi driver of those trips, that amount has been ignored and not granted by claims tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that compensation which has been worked out by claims tribunal in conservative manner and not calculated being a beneficiary law which has been applied in case of claimant and even claims tribunal has not considered that claimant has shortening of 3/4 inch of right lower extremity because of injuries. The promotion in the post of Dy.S.P. has not been received by claimant though seven Police Inspectors have been promoted as Dy.S.P. on 20th July 1988 those who were juniors to claimant. The promotion in the post of Dy.S.P. has not been received by claimant though seven Police Inspectors have been promoted as Dy.S.P. on 20th July 1988 those who were juniors to claimant. The claims tribunal has also committed an error in considering fitness certificate produced by claimant at the time of joining duty, but, that does not mean that injury which has been caused being a permanent disability is fully cured by passage of time. The Doctor had certified 60% permanent disability and Medical Board had certified 50% permanent disability. He also submitted that Rs.200/-future permanent loss has been wrongly calculated which is on lower side and therefore, claims tribunal has committed gross error in not properly appreciating Dr. Dave's evidence as well as medical certificate given by Civil Hospital and report of Medical Board Ex.119. The injury received by claimant has been disclosed and described before claims tribunal, even though, it has not been properly appreciated by claims tribunal, therefore, according to his submission, claimant is entitled a substantial amount of enhancement. 16. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar is relied upon one decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Mahendrakumar Manilal Patel & Anr. v. Ramjibhai Dalsibhai Chaudhary & Ors. reported in 2006(1) GLR 637 , where, identical case has been decided by Division Bench of this Court as one PSI who received injuries during the course of employment and his one leg has been amputed upto knee. The Division Bench of this Court has enhanced compensation which comes to Rs.4,99,800/- against award passed by claims tribunal. He relied upon Para 9, 11 and 13 with Head Note B and C, which are quoted as under : “Head Note (B) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (LIX of 1988) - Sec. 168 - Compensation payable in disablement would be higher than in fatal cases = Retionale stated. Head Note (C) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (LIXof 1988) - Sec. 168 - Compensation for disablement - Victim a P.S.I., aged 34 yearssuffering 70% disablement - Officer wouldlose chance of accelerated promotions, monetary rewards for exemplary work etc. -These aspects to be taken into account “Compensation for loss of future earningenhanced - On facts, compensation for pain, shock and suffering enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/-. 9. -These aspects to be taken into account “Compensation for loss of future earningenhanced - On facts, compensation for pain, shock and suffering enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/-. 9. The Supreme Court said in R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (1995 ACJ 366) that while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages, in other words, pecuniary loss and non pecuniary loss. Pecuniary damages are those which are capable of being calculated in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages include (i) medical expenses, (ii) loss of earning or other profits, (iii) loss of earning capacity or incapability in the labour market and (iv) material loss because of the injuries which leave him with setback for the rest of his life. Non pecuniary damages include (i) damages for pain, shock and suffering, already suffered and/or likely to be suffered in future, (ii) loss of amenities of life which may include inability to walk, run or sit, (iii) damages for the loss of expectancy of life on account of injury, as on account of injury, the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened, (iv) damages for inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress etc. This groups of categories may not be exhaustive. Facts of the case, statutes, judicial pronouncements, experience and innovation may point out further heads/ sub heads for application in case(s) coming before the Court for adjudication. It is settled principle that in disablement cases, compensation payable is higher than in fatal cases, since it is the claimant himself who utilizes compensation amount and it is he who has to suffer the impact of accident throughout his remaining life. [See: Bhagwan Das v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (1994 ACJ 702)]. The extent of compensation depends on the extent of disablement, its duration and consequences on the life of a victim, details of which may vary from case to case. While assessing the damages, Court may give the same head-wise or by way of global figure, but sine-qua-non is `just' compensation and also not to award compensation which amounts to unjust enrichment. 11. While assessing the damages, Court may give the same head-wise or by way of global figure, but sine-qua-non is `just' compensation and also not to award compensation which amounts to unjust enrichment. 11. Adverting to the case under discussion, keeping in mind that it is a case of personal injury, for assessment of proper damages, evidence adduced by the parties has to be clearly analyzed and understood. Accident took place on 10.8.1983. Claimant, at the time of accident, was at the threshold of his career. He was 34 year old working as Police Sub Inspector. The injuries which he suffered due to the accident rendered him helpless and crippled for the rest of his life. Requirement of Police force is perfect physical fitness, always available for movement and acts on which depends his promotions and post superannuation life. After long treatment, his left leg below knee is amputed. He had suffered other injuries and fracture on left hand also. Therefore, apart from amputation of left leg below knee, he remained under plaster for these injuries, treated in various hospitals, as indoor patient from 10.8.1983 to 7.10.1983, thereafter outdoor patient for further treatment, permanent partial disability to the extent of 70% due to imputation of leg, unable to move without crutches, thereafter with artificial leg and unable to work with left hand, super condylar fracture bunerus (left) fracture, unable to walk fast, climb, drive vehicles and take part in sports and outside investigations, parades, therefore, all round handicap. These injuries caused him great pain, shock, physical discomfiture, loss of pleasure and amenities of life. Doctor states that artificial limb will have to be replaced after two years, eight times in fifteen years. It was contended that claimant could change artificial limb at lower cost from Jaipur, therefore, claim for higher compensation for future replacements is not justified. We fail to understand this submission. Fact remains that artificial limb requires replacement after two years. In case better and suitable artificial limb is available at any other place, claimant can use the same. Further, it was contended that claim for compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is not justified. Again, this submission cannot be accepted. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that claimant suffered extensive wound of size 15 cms. x 10 cms. Further, it was contended that claim for compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is not justified. Again, this submission cannot be accepted. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that claimant suffered extensive wound of size 15 cms. x 10 cms. over left leg with muscles exposed and crushed with no movement and sensation, therefore, it was amputed on 10.8.1983 below knee, plaster applied to it, other fracture on left hand. He must have really suffered mental agony, pain and shock. He also suffered physical discomfiture and loss of pleasures and amenities of life. He spent on medicines, nursing, lodging and boarding, cost of two attendants, for special diet, conveyance expenses, loss of salary and loss of future earnings. It is contended that claimant has not suffered these losses, therefore not entitled for claim, he did not suffer loss of salary and loss of promotions since he was promoted upto the rank of Dy.S.P., future loss is not justified, since employment after superannuation is not available to him. In this accident, claimant suffered following injuries, medical certificate issued by Dr.K.S.Shah, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad (Ex.50): (1) Supertie Slab over left lower limb from indoor extensive wound over left leg size 15 cm x 10 cm muscles exposed, muscles crushed. Tenderness on skin on lower part of wound. There was no movement and no sensation. Tibia fibula below knee amputation was done on 10.8.83 at 11:30 a.m. (2) Supertie plaster over left upper limb from indoor supra condlyoar fracture humerus left. (3) Abrasion over left frontal region size 1-1/2”x 1”. After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, Claims Tribunal allowed compensation under different heads, namely, (i) Rs.75,000/- (pain, shock and suffering), (ii) Rs.3,000/- (medicines), (iii) Rs.8,000/-(nursing costs), (iv) Rs.3,000/-(special diet), (v) Rs.13,000 (conveyance expenses), (vi) Rs.28,000/- (loss of salary), (vii) Rs.12,000/- (expenses for buying limbs in future) and (viii) Rs.3,62,250/-(loss of future earnings), totally Rs.5,04,250/-, paid Rs.5,00,000/-, although claimed Rs.9,86,349/- through written arguments submitted before the Claims Tribunal. During the course of submissions by learned counsel for the insured and claimant, main emphasis was directed to heads of (i) pain, shock and suffering, (ii) expenses for buying limbs in future, and (iii) loss of future earnings. Payments by the Government are on specified items, therefore, many other items require personal spendings. Charges for boarding, lodging, special diet, conveyance, etc. Payments by the Government are on specified items, therefore, many other items require personal spendings. Charges for boarding, lodging, special diet, conveyance, etc. are not payable nor cost of artificial legs. A man from Police force can easily engage in other better assignments. He can also engage in post retirement assignments, security service being one of them, looking to improved longevity and nature of their service. During service, he can secure accelerated promotions and obtain monetary awards for achievements in investigations, parades, and engagements in social duties like earthquakes, floods, riots, etc. But an officer suffering from disability, particularly of leg, would be at loss in post accident service and employment market. Normal promotions in service may be there but they do not compensate these losses. In Mahomed Hanif Dallu v. Lunkaran Ganpatram Sharma & Anr. ( 1980 GLR 412 ), this Court said in paragraph 9: “..... The victim's eligibility for employment, assuming that in his future life he would have sought employment, was bound to be reduced because of the injury suffered by him. It was also held that in any case, any person not suffering from such disability would be preferred and, therefore, there was a loss of chance of favourable employment. Even assuming that the appellant would not have sought employment but taken to some profession, there is no manner of doubt that even if there be no total loss of career, there will be considerable handicap in pursuing the same career ......” Thereafter, in paragraph 9-A, this Court said: “..... Sometimes permanent partial disability may not have immediate effect on the plaintiff's earnings and it may be fond that he was still able to earn his pre-accident wages and to perform his pre-accident work. Nevertheless his disability would render him unfit for some profession or occupation for which he was previously fit and qualified and such a man is at a disadvantage compared with his colleagues in the labour market .....” In paragraph 7-A of this decision, this Court said: “.... that the fall in the value of money in our country was the main factor to be kept in view while assessing the damages on the count of pain and suffering. It was observed that the need for periodical reassessment of damages at certain key points was a felt need and the requirement of adjusting awards to changing conditions was realised .....” 13. It was observed that the need for periodical reassessment of damages at certain key points was a felt need and the requirement of adjusting awards to changing conditions was realised .....” 13. Giving consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, Apex Court decision in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (supra), which clearly lays down that claimant is entitled to `just' compensation, Court should grant it irrespective of claim made by the victim of accident, on the available evidence or allow amendment to be made and opportunity to lead evidence. Further, claimant can also be awarded compensation for future medical treatment. We are not in agreement with the contentions raised by Shri B.N.Keshwani relying on B.H.Nagarathana and others v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (1999 ACJ 1472), that claimant is not entitled to more compensation than claimed by him, he is not aggrieved person since he has been awarded compensation claimed by him. This is not so. Through written submissions, claim for Rs.9,86,349/- is made. The Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs.5,04,250/-but awarded Rs.5,00,000/- on the ground that compensation to this extent is claimed. This conclusion is not reflected from written submissions of claimant taken on record by the Tribunal. Looking to the seriousness of injuries resulting in amputation of one leg, long treatment, claimant must have undergone great pain, shock and sufferings and continue to suffer in future as discussed hereinbefore. Therefore, compensation under this head deserves to be enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/-. According to the doctor, artificial leg requires to be replaced every two years. It is contended that reasonable compensation has been awarded under this head. Claimant cannot be asked to use artificial limbs from Jaipur alone because they are cheaper. Question is of suitability and reliability. In case better artificial limb is available elsewhere, he can do so. Shri B.S.Patel contended that claimant has replaced artificial leg number of times costing him much more than awarded by the Tribunal. To buttress this submission, Bill No.120 dated 12.2.2002, Rehabs Physical Restorations, A-1, Mangalsai, Opp.Baroda Hi-School, 84, Alkapuri Society, Vadodara-390007, is placed on record (Mark-X). Claimant may have replaced artificial leg after two years as stated by the doctor but expenditure statements/ bills have not been filed. Opposite parties do not state that claimant undertook replacement of limbs from Jaipur during all replacements. Therefore, in these circumstances, expenses for buying limbs is increased to Rs.1,20,000/-. Claimant may have replaced artificial leg after two years as stated by the doctor but expenditure statements/ bills have not been filed. Opposite parties do not state that claimant undertook replacement of limbs from Jaipur during all replacements. Therefore, in these circumstances, expenses for buying limbs is increased to Rs.1,20,000/-. Similarly, there is loss of future earnings as discussed in preceding part of judgment. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,62,250/-. Taking monthly salary Rs.3,500 / 70% (disability) = Rs.2,450 x 12 = Rs.29,400 x 17 = Rs.4,99,800/-, compensation for loss of future earnings is increased to Rs.4,99,800/-.” 17. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar also relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud & Ors. reported in 2007(7) Supreme 450 . The relevant are Para 8 and 9, which are quoted as under : “8. We find substance in the submission put forth by the counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income. After the fracture of tibia, it is doubtful if the appellant can even drive again. Even if he pursues some other vocation, he would not be able to earn as much as he is earning now. The disability suffered by the appellant would surely reduce his earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant is required to be compensated for the loss of earning due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 9. Taking into consideration the present income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month; and the permanent disability of 45% suffered by him, we are of the view that the capacity of the appellant to earn in future would be reduced by Rs.1,800/- per month approximately. If 1/3rd is deducted towards miscellaneous expenses, the loss of income comes to Rs.1,200/- per month which, in turn, comes to Rs.14,400/- per annum. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident. Taking the multiplier to be 18 [as per the Second Schedule to Section 163A of the Act], the total loss of income comes to Rs.2,59,200/-.” 18. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar also relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of Sapna v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 2281 . The relevant are Para 12 and 14, which are quoted as under : “12. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar also relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of Sapna v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 2281 . The relevant are Para 12 and 14, which are quoted as under : “12. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr.[ (2003) 3 SCC 148 ], it was held : "11. It is now a well-settled principleof law that the payment of compensationon the basis of structured formula as provided for under the Second Scheduleshould not ordinarily be deviated from.Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166thereof. Deviation from the structured formula, however, as has been held bythis Court, may be resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be justand fair in the facts and circumstances of each case." We may also notice a decision in Nagappa v.Gurudayal Singh & Ors. [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ]wherein a Three Judge Bench of this Courtopined that the law does not permit passingof any further award after the final awardwas passed, stating : "Therefore, in a case where injury toa victim requires periodical medicalexpenses, fresh award cannot be passedor previous award cannot be reviewedwhen the medical expenses are incurredafter finalization of the compensationproceedings. Hence, the onlyalternative is that at the time of passing of final award, the Tribunal/court should consider such eventuality and fix compensationaccordingly. No one can suggest thatit is improper to take into accountexpenditure genuinely and reasonablyrequired to be incurred for futuremedical expenses. Future medical expenses required to be incurred canbe determined only on the basis offair guesswork after taking into account increase in the cost of medical treatment." 14. It has not been disputed that future treatment for the appellant would be necessary. If future treatment is necessary,some provision should be made therefor. In absence of any clear cut estimate, we areinclined to award a further sum of Rs.75,000/- under the said head. She mayrequire another operation. She may require tobe provided with an artificial limb. We,direct accordingly.” 19. He further relied upon decision of Madras High Court in case of Shanmugham v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division, Villupuram reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 257 . She mayrequire another operation. She may require tobe provided with an artificial limb. We,direct accordingly.” 19. He further relied upon decision of Madras High Court in case of Shanmugham v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division, Villupuram reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 257 . The relevant are Head Note 'A' and 'B', which are quoted as under : “Head Note” A - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), Section 166 - Motor Accident “Injuries suffered by victim Claim for compensation Award passed for Rs.15,000/-as against the claim for Rs.1,00,000/- -Medical bills rejected on the ground that the concerned doctors, were not examined - Appeal by the claimant, for enhancement - There is no question of granting any amount towards medical expenses as “gratis” - Claimant has produced all the relevant medical records in original - Tribunal ought to have either accepted it or rejected it - No question of the Tribunal making ex gratia payment - There is no reason to doubt the bona fide of the claimant - Claimant is entitled to claim the complete medical expenses - Award of compensation, enhanced. Head Note-(B) - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), Section 166 - Application for compensation - Victim of the accident is entitled to take treatment from different doctors - Method and period of treatment shall depend on the response of the patient Victim cannot be asked to examine all the doctors, who treated him - If the Tribunal directs the examination of all such doctors, it will defeat the very object of the Act, which is a remedy for the cause and effect of an accident - Appeal allowed to the extent indicated.” 20. He further relied upon decision of Division Bench of Madras High Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. G. Balasubramaniyam reported in 2007 (6) MLJ 585 . The relevant is Para 19, which is quoted as under : “19. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there was duplication of award of compensation, since the Tribunal had awarded a further sum of Rs.4,00,00/- as compensation for the loss of comforts occasioned due to the permanent disability suffered by the first respondent/first claimant, over and above, the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- awarded as compensation for loss of future earning capacity. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of Madras High Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., v. Ahmed Thambi (2006) 4 MLJ 362 : 2006 (4) CTC 433 . In case of injuries resulting in permanent disability, tow methods of assessment of compensation for permanent disability are possible. One by awarding a lump sum payment for the permanent disability which will take into its fold, the loss of future earning capacity and loss of amenities in life and the other by awarding separate amounts for loss of future earning capacity and loss of amenities in life caused by the permanent disability. As per the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court cited above, what is prohibited is awarding separate amount of compensation for loss of earning capacity, when lump sum payment is awarded for permanent disability as such or awarding separate amount as compensation for permanent disability as such, after separately itemising compensation for loss of earning capacity. In case loss of earning capacity is separately assessed without awarding lump sum amount for permanent disability as such, there is no prohibition for separately assessing compensation for loss of amenities in life caused by the permanent disability. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to fully accept the above said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is duplication of award of compensation. The award of separate amounts: (1) for loss of earning capacity and (2) for loss of amenities in life caused by the permanent disability is perfectly in accordance with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the judgment cited supra.” 21. He also relied upon decision of Madras High Court in case of Saravanan @ Saravanakumar v. M. Sankaran and Another reported in 2008(4) MLJ 1193 . The relevant are Para 10, 17 and 18, which are quoted as under : “10. In 2005 (1) TN MAC 87, the claimant had sustained fracture on the right thigh, right knee and injuries all over the body. - He was unable to stand, walk freely, climbing stairs and not able to drive and his right leg shortened than that of the left leg'. In 2005 (1) TN MAC 87, the claimant had sustained fracture on the right thigh, right knee and injuries all over the body. - He was unable to stand, walk freely, climbing stairs and not able to drive and his right leg shortened than that of the left leg'. The Division Bench felt that the award should be based on the larger perspective of justice, equity and good conscience and technicalities in the decision-making must be eschewed and held as follows: “.... There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownerships are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries. Deprivation sustained as a consequence of bodily injuries may bring with it three consequence, namely (I) loss of earnings and earning capacity, (ii) expenses to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself and (iii) loss or diminution in full pleasures and joys of living. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Tribunals and Courts should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Loss of curing and earning should adequately be compensated. Therefore, while considering deprivation, the Tribunal and Courts should have due regard to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. In awarding damages in personal injury cases, the compensation awarded by the Court should be substantial, it should not be merely token damages.” 17. As regards loss of amenities of life, the Tribunal was not willing to accept the appellant's case that he was earning a sum of Rs.1750/- per month. He had produced Exhibit A-6. The appellant had passed SSLC and claimed that he was working in Ambika Electronics. Even for a non earning member, a sum of Rs.1,250/- is fixed as monthly income. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the appellant's monthly income at the rate of Rs.1,750/-, when even for a non earning member, a notional income of Rs.1,250/- is fixed as monthly income. Even for a non earning member, a sum of Rs.1,250/- is fixed as monthly income. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the appellant's monthly income at the rate of Rs.1,750/-, when even for a non earning member, a notional income of Rs.1,250/- is fixed as monthly income. Therefore, Rs.1,750/- is accepted as the monthly income. He was out of employment for a period of three months. So, Rs.4,250/- is awarded for loss of earning. 18. The disability, was fixed at 95%. I find that the percentage of disability for deformity of genital organs was fixed at 60% for absence of both tests, 5% and for deformity in both hips 20%. Therefore, it shows that he cannot stand for too long, which will affect his job prospect. He was very young at the time of the accident, and if he had 100% health his job prospect would have bee definitely better. If his disability namely, shortening of hips will not make him incapable of working, definitely, his prospects of getting a job commensurate with his capacity prior to the accident would have reduced. This reduction and loss of prospects is fixed at 750/- per month. He was only 26 years old at the time of the accident and adopting multiplier of 18, the reduction in loss of earning capacity would be Rs.1,62,000/-.” 22. I have considered submissions made by all learned advocates those who are appearing on behalf of respective parties. I have also perused award passed by Claims Tribunal, Bharuch and I have also considered decision which has been relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar appearing on behalf of appellant claimant. 23. The question is that looking to injury as per medical certificate given by Civil Hospital Ex.90 and evidence of Dr. Dipak Dave Ex.122 where claimant was found to be completely unstable and deformed right knee joint. Dr. Dave advised the claimant to approach Dr. Chaubal at Bombay and on 11th June 1984, Dr. Dave assisted Dr. Chaubal in repairing ligament of claimant. Middle semi-lunar cartiledge of right knee joint was removed and critiat ligament was repaired. Thereafter, second operation was performed and lateral co-lateral ligament was repaired and follow-up treatment was given by Dr. Dave under instructions of Dr. Chaubal. The letter addressed by Dr. Chaubal is Ex.123. Dr. Dave assisted Dr. Chaubal in repairing ligament of claimant. Middle semi-lunar cartiledge of right knee joint was removed and critiat ligament was repaired. Thereafter, second operation was performed and lateral co-lateral ligament was repaired and follow-up treatment was given by Dr. Dave under instructions of Dr. Chaubal. The letter addressed by Dr. Chaubal is Ex.123. Dr. Dave has also issued disability certificate Ex.124 showing following disability of claimant : “(i) Lateral instability and tenderness right knee. (ii) He has shortening of 3/4 inch of right lower extremity. (iii) Muscular waisting on the right side by 0.7 inches (iv) He also has developed arthritis on the left side of his body. (v) He also has lumber spondylosis.” 24. Ultimately, Dr. Dave estimated permanent partial disability at 60% and Medical Board has assessed disability at 50% as per Ex.119. According to Dr. Dave's evidence, in future, there will be future deterioration due to secondary arthritis and longevity of life also decrease. Dr. Saraiya has also sent his opinion from America on reference of claimant's case to him and he has estimated the amount of expenditure. The letter is produced at Ex.126. 25. In light of aforesaid evidence, claims tribunal has considered 50% permanent partial disability of claimant as per Report Ex.119 of Medical Board. Therefore, future loss which has been worked out by claims tribunal considering Rs.200/-per month ignoring 50% partial disability as per report of Medical Board Ex.119 is not proper and legal. The effect of disability being a permanent partial, claimant is entitled the amount of compensation for future loss due to disability which has been certified by Medical Board, however, the claims tribunal must have to work out compensation on the basis of salary which was received by claimant at the time when accident occurred. As per evidence of claimant, in the year of 1985, he was drawing total salary Rs.2700/- + 450/- = Rs.3150/- per month. In the year of 1983 when accident had occurred, his salary was Rs.1300/- and in the year of 1984, his salary was Rs.1700/- which was subsequently revised means on the date of deposition, he was drawing Rs.3150/- salary per month. In the year of 1983 when accident had occurred, his salary was Rs.1300/- and in the year of 1984, his salary was Rs.1700/- which was subsequently revised means on the date of deposition, he was drawing Rs.3150/- salary per month. In light of aforesaid salary/wages received by claimant, if it is considered 50% permanent partial disability, then, Rs.900/- is to be considered being a 50% loss to claimant, then, yearly it comes to Rs.10,800/- and looking to age of claimant, 15 multiplier is to be taken into account, then, amount comes to Rs.1,62,000/-. Out of that, claims tribunal has awarded Rs.36,000/-, if it is to be deducted being a future economic loss to claimant, then remaining amount comes to Rs.1,26,000/- being an enhanced amount as per 50% permanent partial disability keeping in mind figure Rs.1800/- salary which was available to claimant on the period of treatment because of injury received in accident, therefore, Rs.1,26,000/- is required to be enhanced for future economic loss to claimant based on Report of Medical Board being non-pecuniary loss as well as future loss in earning capacity due to permanent disability. 26. Looking to injuries; two operations and 159 days Earned Leaves, which suggest period of treatment, the amount available for pain, shock and suffering is Rs.25,000/-, but, Division Bench in identical case as referred above has awarded for pain, shock and suffering being an enhanced amount which comes to Rs.1,25,000/-, therefore, after deducting Rs.25,000/- awarded by claims tribunal, Rs.1,00,000/- is required to be enhanced under the head of pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyments of life. The medical expenses for medical treatment and medical bills and receipts given by Doctors which are not exhibited because Doctors were not examined, such technical stand or view cannot be taken by claims tribunal, for that, claimant is entitled Rs.35,000/- being an enhanced amount, against the amount awarded by claims tribunal Rs.28,100/-. The amount for gratuitous services rendered by attendants has been awarded Rs.2,000/-only. Looking to injury and two operations undergone by claimant; one is at Bombay and another is at Bharuch, which requires two attendants with claimant, therefore, according to my opinion, Rs.20,000/- is required to be enhanced under aforesaid head. The transport charges for follow-up treatment, only Rs.4,000/-has been awarded which also required to be enhanced upto Rs.25,000/-. Looking to injury and two operations undergone by claimant; one is at Bombay and another is at Bharuch, which requires two attendants with claimant, therefore, according to my opinion, Rs.20,000/- is required to be enhanced under aforesaid head. The transport charges for follow-up treatment, only Rs.4,000/-has been awarded which also required to be enhanced upto Rs.25,000/-. In case of special diet at Bharuch and at Bombay, only Rs.1500/- has been awarded which also requires to be enhanced up to Rs.15,000/-. The compensation for future treatment if any in USA as per Dr. Saravaiya Ex.126, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of the said amount upto Rs.19,000/-. So, in all, claimant is entitled for enhance amount under each head which discussed above comes to Rs.3,40,000/-. 27. The claims tribunal has awarded meager amount with a conservative approach and not appreciated the real pain suffered by claimant and it also adversely affects the enjoyment of life up to mark and also loss to claimant in respect of future promotion and also loss of future service after retirement. While considering compensation in case of injury, if employee was allowed to work and he received salary that does not mean that there is no future loss caused to claimant. In case of injury when 50% permanent partial disability is there, it reduced the strength of body as a whole about 50%, so, person becomes weak as 50% which weakness remains continue in his lief time, so, he may not able to perform any kind of work as 100%, therefore, according to my opinion, claimant is entitled considering entire facts and circumstances of case as well as evidence which was considered by claims tribunal on record, the amount of compensation which has been worked out by claims tribunal is on lower side means meager amount and therefore, claimant is entitled enhanced amount which comes to Rs.3,40,000/- under aforesaid heads as discussed by this Court as above with 12% interest from date of filing claim petition till date of realisation. 28. In result, present First Appeal is partly allowed. 29. 28. In result, present First Appeal is partly allowed. 29. The claimant is entitled to recover 60% of enhance amount of Rs.3,40,000/- from Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and remaining 40% of enhanced amount is to be recovered from Respondent Nos.4 to 6 those who are jointly and severally liable with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. Opponent No.6 do satisfy the claim of 40% as if it is a judgment debtor. 30. After realising the entire amounts from Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as from Respondent Nos.4 to 6 as directed by this Court, Claims Tribunal concerned is directed to pay entire amount by account payee cheque in name of Shailesh J. Mehta - claimant, after proper verification. 31. R. & P., if available, be sent to claims tribunal concerned, forthwith.