Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 09.03.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Rajkot in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 109 of 1987 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 69,400/- as compensation with interest and costs. 2. It is the case of the appellant that on 21.10.1986 the appellant who was the driver of a truck bearing registration No. GTY 6425 had halted at Padadhari Petrol Pump for tea. At that time, two trucks bearing registration No. GTW 4116 and GTK 2711 came from Rajkot side. The driver of truck No. GTW 4116 slowed down the truck as a result of which the truck No. GTK 2711 dashed with GTW 4116 and therefore GTW 4116 turned turtle. The truck No. GTW 4116 after turning turtle came and hit the applicant as a result of which his both legs sustained injury. The appellant therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. 3. Mr. Vikram Thakore, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Bhatt for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the permanent partial disability of the appellant to the extent of 25% only. He submitted that in view of the fact that the appellant had lost both his legs which are important for a driver or for a person to do any skilled work, the loss ought to have been assessed at 100%. 3.1 In support of his submission, Mr. Thakore has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Kumaresh vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd & Another, reported in 2011 STPL (Web) 462 SC and submitted that the Apex Court in the said decision has held the disability for loss of leg below the knee sustained by the manual labourer at 50% and therefore the Tribunal if not 100% atleast ought to have considered the disability at 50%. 3.2 Mr. Thakore further submitted that holding that the appellant’s monthly income is only Rs. 800/- even though he earned more than that. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have doubled the income and added the same to the present income before taking the average to arrive at the correct future loss of income. 3.2 Mr. Thakore further submitted that holding that the appellant’s monthly income is only Rs. 800/- even though he earned more than that. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have doubled the income and added the same to the present income before taking the average to arrive at the correct future loss of income. He submitted that having regard to the fact that the appellant was hospitalised for a period of around 75 days and thereafter was under treatment for nearly six months, the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering is on lower side. 4. Mr. Sandip C. Shah and Mr. G.C. Mazmudar, learned advocates appearing for the respondent insurance company supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the amount awarded is just and proper. 5. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to income and deduction by way of personal expenses are already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit & Anr. vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors., reported in 1996 AIR 1274 = (1996 SCC (3) 179) it is held as under: “. . . . Adopting the same scientific yardstick as laid down in the aforesaid judgement, the computation of compensation in the present case can almost be subjected to a well settled mathematical formula. Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross salary of Rs. 1,543/- per month. Rounding it upto figure of Rs. 1,500/- and keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e. upto Rs. 3,000/- per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, namely, Rs. 3,000/- per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, namely, Rs. 1,500/- per month to the maximum which he would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs. 4,500/- divided by 2, i.e. Rs. 2,200/-. Rs. 2,200/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family of the deceased had he survived as a bread winner. . . . . . . .” 6. Thus considering the formula laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit (Supra) the income of the deceased is to be calculated. In the present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 800/-. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. The said income should be doubled and actual gross income should be added. By doubling, the amount would come to Rs. 1,600/- and by adding current income of Rs. 800/- it would come to Rs. 2,400/-. Average monthly income can be derived by dividing the same by 2. Therefore the average income would come to Rs. 1,200/-. 6.1 In the present case the disability assessed by the Tribunal is at 25%. The Tribunal has considered the medical evidence of the doctor at Ex. 59 coupled with Ex. 60 wherein the doctor Dr. Deepak Sheth himself has stated that the appellant received permanent partial disability to the extent of 30%. In the cross-examination the doctor has admitted that the total disability of the body as a whole can be assessed at 23%. Moreover, the Tribunal has also considered the fact that the appellant himself admitted in his cross examination that he can get any service except as driver. The Tribunal relying on a decision of this Court reported in 1992 (1) GLH 228 came to the conclusion that assessment of disability at 25% would be just and proper. This Court is in agreement with the same. 6.2 As far as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sri. The Tribunal relying on a decision of this Court reported in 1992 (1) GLH 228 came to the conclusion that assessment of disability at 25% would be just and proper. This Court is in agreement with the same. 6.2 As far as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sri. Kumaresh (Supra) is concerned, it is required to be noted that the Apex Court therein relied upon the Schedule-I to the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 where percentage of loss of earning capacity due to amputation below knee with stump exceeding 12.70 cms was determined at 50%. However, in the present case under the Motor Vehicles Act it shall not be appropriate to go beyond the medical evidence or without any statutory support. 7. Therefore considering the income at Rs. 12,00/- per month and the disability at 25%, the loss per month comes to Rs. 300/- which is Rs. 3600/- per annum. The multiplier of 16 awarded in the present case is just and proper. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 57,600/- (Rs. 3600 x 16). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 38,400/- for future loss of income. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 19200/- under this head. 8. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads more particularly amount awarded under pain, shock and suffering is just and proper and no interference is required. 9. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 19,200/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs P P P P P