JUDGMENT : K.J. THAKER, J. 1. By way of this appeal the appellant has challenged judgement and award dated 15.05.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kutch at Bhuj, in M.A.C.P. No. 597 of 1996 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,64,850/- with interest at the rate 9% p.a. and proportionate costs to the applicant to be paid by opponents Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 08/05/1996 the appellant Dhanjibhai Sendhabhi Vankar was walking on Kandla-Ahmedabad road near Village Vongh. At about 4.30 am, Rameshbhai Lavjibhai Thakore, opponent No.1 was driving his tanker bearing No. GJ-8-U-1050 rashly and negligently and dashed with the appellant. Out of this accident, the appellant got multiple injuries and was being treated as indoor patient in different hospitals. The appellant was doing labour work but because of this accident he became unfit for doing such work. Hence, the appellant has preferred M.A.C.P No. 597 of 1996 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kutch at Bhuj for getting compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In order to prove the aforesaid charge, the Tribunal examined following documents: Sr. No. Exh Remarks 1 18 Opponents Nos. 1 and 2 they have submitted the written objections at Exh. 18 2 20 The Opponent No.3 has produced written reply at Exh 20 3 34 Applicant's statement stating the fact that the accident took place due to dashing of the aforesaid tanker. 4 36 Dr. Hadiya has been examined at Exh 36 5 38 The police has filed charge sheet at Exh 38 against the original opponent No.1. 6 39 Panchnama has been drawn at Exh 39 7 39 to 57 Documents of treatment of the applicant treated at various hospitals produced at Exh 39 to 57 8 41 Discharge card/certificate of G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj is produced at Exh 41 9 46 Certificate, provided by the Doctor to the applicant showing that the doctor has taken out the bandage on 18.06.1996, is produced at Exh 46 10 50 to 56 The applicant has taken treatment at different time at the Sterling Hospital and at the hospitals of Dr. Thakkar, Dr. Gurjar, Dr. Patel, Dr. Bhatiya, Dr. Hadiya, Dr. P.S.Patel etc. documents of which are produced at Exh 50-56 11 57 to 59 The evidence for the expense of Rs.7600/- has been produced at Exh 57 to 59 12 60 Certificate provided by Dr. Thakkar, Dr. Gurjar, Dr. Patel, Dr. Bhatiya, Dr. Hadiya, Dr. P.S.Patel etc. documents of which are produced at Exh 50-56 11 57 to 59 The evidence for the expense of Rs.7600/- has been produced at Exh 57 to 59 12 60 Certificate provided by Dr. Hadiya produced at Exh 60 in which he has assessed total 91% disability to the applicant. The Tribunal vide its order dated 15.05.2009 has awarded Rs.1,64,850/- with interest at the rate 9% p.a. and proportionate costs to the applicant to be paid by opponents Nos. 1 to 3. Being aggrieved by the said order present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation. 3. The Tribunal had framed following issues vide Exh 28: 1. Whether the applications prove that he/she sustained grievous injuries due to rash and or negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident? As far as negligence is concerned neither the owner nor the insurance company has filed any appeal and therefore the said issue attains finality and is not discussed. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation if yes, what amount and from whom? This issue can be divided into the following points on which this appeal is required to be decided. 3. What order? 4. The Tribunal, while deciding the case of the appellant has considered the following judgments: 1. In case of Krishna Bus Service Ltd. v. Smt Magli and ors. reported in 1976 ACJ page No. 183 (Supreme Court) 2. In case of N.K.V Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. M.Karumai Ammal and ors. reported in 1980 ACJ page No. 435 (Supreme Court) 3. In case of Kausnuma Begum and ors v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors. reported in 2001 ACJ page No. 428 (Supreme Court) 4. In case of Nasimbanu and ors v. Ramjibhai Bachubhai Aahir and ors reported in 2005 ACJ page 1816 (Guj) 5. In case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Babubhai Dipubhai Chauhan and ors reported in 2006 ACJ page 2688 6. Shobhan Singh and ors v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors reported in 2008 ACJ page 832 7. Laxmidevi and ors v. Mohammad Tabbar and ors reported in 2008 ACJ page 1488 8. Mohanbhai Gemabhai v. Balubhai Savjibhai and ors reported in 1994 ACJ page 260 (Guj) 9. Shobhan Singh and ors v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors reported in 2008 ACJ page 832 7. Laxmidevi and ors v. Mohammad Tabbar and ors reported in 2008 ACJ page 1488 8. Mohanbhai Gemabhai v. Balubhai Savjibhai and ors reported in 1994 ACJ page 260 (Guj) 9. Mahendrakumar Manilal Patel v. Ramjibhai Dalsibhai Chaudhry and ors reported in 2001 (2) GLR page 1777 : 2006 ACJ 1941 (Guj) 10. Bharat Premjibhai v. Municipal Corporation Ahmedabad and order s reported in 1979 ACJ 264 (Guj) 11. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Suryakantaben D. Aacharya and ors reported in 2001 ACJ 1645 (Guj.) 12. Neshamani Tansport Corporation ltd. v. Chenthilathiapan and ors reported in (2000) ACC 332 (Madras) 13. Ragni v. Raju and ors reported in 2003 ACJ 1109 (Supreme Court) 14. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Balusinh Nathusinh Parmar reported in 1992 ACJ 484 (Guj) 15. Ramanbhai Kalidas Darji v. Babusing Thakore reported in 2000 (2) GLH (U.J) 7 16. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savthanji Khadaji Thakore and ors reported in (2008) (1) ACC 477 (Guj) 17. Nagppa v. Guru Kalyansing and ors reported in 2003 ACJ 12 (Supreme Court) 18. Dr. K.R. Tandan v. Omprakash and ors reported in 1999 ACJ 1299 (Supreme Court) 19. 1999 ACJ 1299 (Supreme Court) (para 3) 20. 1994 ACJ 260 (Guj) para 19 21. 2005 ACJ 1202 (Bombay) para 62 22. 2004 (3) GLR 26884 23. 2005 ACJ Supreme Court 1323 24. 2006 ACJ 854 25. 2001 ACJ 428 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of accident the claimant-appellant was aged about 25 years. Counsel further submitted that the multiplier applied by the labour court is on the lower side and it can never be less than 20. The income of the appellant calculated by the Tribunal is Rs.1560/- per month suggesting that the same would be Rs.2100/- per month. He further submitted that the tribunal has not considered prospective income. He requested to grant prospective income of Rs.3200/- p.m., Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. Learned counsel for the appellant had requested to grant, total amount of compensation of Rs.95,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. from the date of application till realization. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. He requested to grant prospective income of Rs.3200/- p.m., Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. Learned counsel for the appellant had requested to grant, total amount of compensation of Rs.95,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. from the date of application till realization. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Points on which this appeal is required to be decided: (1) Whether the multiplier is on the lower side? (2) Whether the disability considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side? (3) Whether the Tribunal has fallen in error in not considering the functional disability of the appellant? (4) Whether the prospective income has to be considered in light of the latest decisions reported in case of Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways reported in 2014 [3] SCC 210; in case of N. Manjegowda v. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2014 [3] SCC 584; in case of Sadiq Etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co. reported in 2014 (1) SCALE 377 . 7. It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that though the appellant was hospitalized for one month in hospital, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- under the head of shock and suffering when there is 45% of disability. As against this, going through the facts, it is clear that the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that there is an amputation. Fortunately the amputation is not there but there is compound fracture of left hand resulting into severely restricted movements. The accident had occurred in the year 1996. At that time the appellant was doing labour work. According to this Court income of the appellant has been rightly considered to be Rs.1560/-. Hence, no interference is called for. The Tribunal then adopted multiplier of 15 and granted Rs.1,22,850/- under the head of future economic loss. As the appellant was aged 25 years on the date of the accident, multiplier of 15 is on the lower side. In view of the decision of Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr reported in 2009 ACJ 1928 multiplier of 18 for the person in the age group of 21 to 25 is proper. Hence, additional multiplier of 3 under the head of future loss of income will have to be granted. Hence, monthly loss of Rs.682.50x12x3=24,570/- under this head is awarded. 8. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr reported in 2009 ACJ 1928 multiplier of 18 for the person in the age group of 21 to 25 is proper. Hence, additional multiplier of 3 under the head of future loss of income will have to be granted. Hence, monthly loss of Rs.682.50x12x3=24,570/- under this head is awarded. 8. The other aspect namely disability decided by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The disability has been considered by the Tribunal on evidence produced and evaluated. It has been rightly submitted by Ms. Rahevar that the certificate, on which the Tribunal has passed its award is of the year 2008. Therefore, as per the principles enunciated in those days once the Doctor gives permanent disability it is halved for particular part and that has been done by the Tribunal and therefore that issue is answered. 9. The main count on which he would be entitled to additional amount is his functional disability. He has been functionally rendered invalid as far as his left hand is concerned and for the labourer that is the maximum and therefore the said is allowed further under the head of being asked as far as also he would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- more looking to his young age looking to the trauma under which he has undergone. He had to go from one hospital to other for treatment. Therefore in the final analysis the appellant would be entitled an additional amount of Rs.72,900/-. 10. This takes this Court to the third aspect namely functional disability of applicant. The issue of functional disability is answered in favour of applicant and therefore in answer to point No.4 his prospective income has to be considered. 11. Therefore, additional amount of Rs.25,000/- for medical expenses would be just and proper in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of SYED Sadiq Etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co (supra). Details of Treatment: 1. He was initially treated at Govt. Hospital, Bhachau 2. Thereafter he was treated at G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj then he was treated in various Hospital at Ahmedabad. 3. Analgesic/Anti inflammatory drugs were given 4. I.V.Fluids were given 5. BB + CA debridment at wound done 6. Fixation done with K wire 7. Followed by post splant and K wire 8. He was initially treated at Govt. Hospital, Bhachau 2. Thereafter he was treated at G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj then he was treated in various Hospital at Ahmedabad. 3. Analgesic/Anti inflammatory drugs were given 4. I.V.Fluids were given 5. BB + CA debridment at wound done 6. Fixation done with K wire 7. Followed by post splant and K wire 8. He was treated as an indoor patient from 08/05/96 to 09/06/96 in G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj 9. Thereafter he was treated at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad as an indoor patient. 10. Then later on he was treated by Dr.P.P. Thacker (who has initially treated him in G.K.G.H.Bhuj) at Deesa, G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj 11. Sterling Hospital, Ahmedabad, Dr. Kirit Patel, Mahesana, Dr. Kirit Gurjar, Mahesana, Dr. Dhaval Bhatiya, Viramgam, Dr. Pragnesh Patel, Patan 12. He was also treated by Dr. H.M.Hadiya on O.P.D. Basis 12. The decision of the Apex Court in in case of SYED Sadiq Etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co. reported in 2014 SC 1052 would enure for the benefit of the present appellant, and an addition of 50% in increase of his amount will have to be granted. Therefore as per round figure of [1500 x 50% = 750 x 45% = 337.5 x 12=4050x18=72,900/-] Rs.72,900/- would be an additional amount to be given to the appellant. This takes this court to the amount of pain shock and suffering. According to this Court, in the year 1996 the said figure was just and proper and does not call for any interference. 13. Thus, as discussed above the applicant is entitled to get the following compensation: 1 50% in increase of his amount 73,000/- (rounded off) 2 For Pain, shock and suffering 40,000/- 3 Future income loss (after applying multiplier of 3) 25,000/- (rounded off) 4 Medical Expenses 25,000/- Total 1,63,000/- 14. It goes without saying that rate of interest would be 7.5% on additional amount from date of filing of main claim petition. 15. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The applicant is entitled to Rs.1,63,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% on additional amount from date of filing of main claim petition. R & P to be transmitted forthwith. The amount to be paid within four weeks from the copy of receipt of this order. Appeal partly allowed.