JUDGMENT : RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for National Insurance Company Limited appellant-original opponent no. 3 who is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 30.12.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Additional District Judge, Anand in M.A.C. Petition No. 3294 of 2006 (old no. 1502 of 1998). 2. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 3, relevant part of which reads as under: “....In the impugned accident, applicant sustained fractures and crush injury on his left thigh and right leg "Panjo" also sustained other serious injuries on his body.” 3. Learned advocate then invited the attention of the Court about the calculation made by the Hon'ble Tribunal of the compensation to be awarded towards loss of income. In this regard, learned advocate invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 8, relevant part of which reads as under: “....That because of impugned accident, he cannot do work as he was done before the accident, and because of serious injuries in left leg's thigh and right leg's Panjo, applicant cannot do his agricultural work and also work of cattle breeding, and hence, applicant had sold buffaloes and share of applicant of farm, tilting by his brother and out of which 50% be given to the applicant and hence, applicant has lost his total income due to alleged accident. That at the time of accident, he was hale and hearty and he is son of farmer and his father was having 10 Vighas of agricultural land and he was tilting the agricultural land and also keeping buffaloes, he was doing cattle breeding business. After deducting all expenses, he was earning Rs. 9000/- p.m. from the cattle breeding and he was earning Rs. 40,000/- p.m. from agricultural land and by deducting shares of his father and brother, applicant was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. That the said applicant has cross-examined by the L.A. for the opponent no. 3. In his cross-examination he admitted that he has taken at Karamsad and Anand and no elsewhere he took treatment. He also admitted that he has not produced any documentary evidence in respect of expenses incurred towards his treatment, except medical bills produced on record. He admitted that in the year 1998 he got profit of Rs. 3. In his cross-examination he admitted that he has taken at Karamsad and Anand and no elsewhere he took treatment. He also admitted that he has not produced any documentary evidence in respect of expenses incurred towards his treatment, except medical bills produced on record. He admitted that in the year 1998 he got profit of Rs. 1,98,000/- from the cattle breeding, but he admitted that he has not produced any documentary to prove the same. He also admitted that he has produced abstract of 7-12, wherein it bears the name of father of applicant and other co-sharers. In support of income of applicant, L.A. for the applicant has examined one witness Dilipsinh Prabhatsinh Rathod, and his examination, he stated that in the year 1997-98 he was doing job as Cashier in Mogarl Milk Co-operative society and Manaksinh was member of the said milk society and he was filling the milk of Rs. 11,000/- p.m. and Kanaksinh was keeping nine cows. That the said applicant was cross-examined by the L.A. for the opponent no. 3. In his cross-examination, he admitted that member of milk society having it's number, the certificate issued by milk society at Exh.31, no bear member number of applicant and he also admitted that he has no proof that applicant was keeping 9 cows. He also admitted that he has not produced any statement of abstract to prove income of applicant. The applicant has produced certificate at mark 19/9, in respect of agricultural land, certificate at Exh.31 which is issued by Mogar Milk Produce Co- operative Society, it reveals that in the year 1997-98 and applicant was filling milk in the society of Rs. 11,000/- p.m. and was having nine cows. The applicant has produced abstract of 7-12 at Exh.40, it bears the name of father of applicant along-with other co-share. That the applicant has not produced any bills for purchase of seeds of fertizer of growing of crops and he has not produced any bills or selling crops. The applicant has also not produced detailed statement of filling of milk in the Milk Co-operative Society year-wise. The applicant has not produced cogent and convincing documentary evidence on record, and hence, applicant has grossly failed to prove that at the time of accident, in all, he was earning Rs. The applicant has also not produced detailed statement of filling of milk in the Milk Co-operative Society year-wise. The applicant has not produced cogent and convincing documentary evidence on record, and hence, applicant has grossly failed to prove that at the time of accident, in all, he was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Thus in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence regarding income of applicant and considering age of applicant and economy of year 1997 Tribunal is left with no alternative, but to assess notional income of the applicant at the rate 8000/- p.m. and yearly income would come to Rs. 96,000/- p.a. (9) That applicant has produced Injury certificate at Exh.33 and 34, it reveals that applicant sustained crush injuries of left upper thigh with septicemia. The applicant has produced Disability Certificate at Exh.28, wherein doctor has assessed 34% permanent disability of the body as a whole and same was reduced to 27% permanent disability of the body as a whole vide Exh.27. (10) That thereafter considering 27% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole, yearly loss of income will come to Rs. 25,920/- (27% of Rs. 96,000/-). That considering age of the applicant about 34 years, according to disability certificate at Exh.28, multiplier of 16 will be just and proper, and hence applicant is entitled Rs. 4,14,720/- (Rs. 25,920 x 16) towards future loss of income. Thereafter considering injury/disability certificates and indoor patient treatment, applicant is awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet, attendant and transportation charges. The applicant has produced medical bill of Rs. 30,196/- at Exh.38, same is admitted by the other side, and hence applicant is entitled to get Rs. 30,196/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 32,000/- towards actual loss income for four months. So far as pain, shock and suffering is concerned, L.A. for the applicant has relied in the case of Neerupam Mohan Mathur vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2003 (3) TAC 385 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of expectation of life. Thus considering the facts of the cited case and facts of the present case, cited case is applicable to the present case. Ltd. 2003 (3) TAC 385 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of expectation of life. Thus considering the facts of the cited case and facts of the present case, cited case is applicable to the present case. In the present case on hand, applicant sustained fracture on his left leg and doctor has assessed permanent disability of 24.01% in left lower limb and 13.27 in right lower limb and also applicant has produced medical bills of Rs. 30,196/- towards his treatment, and hence considering principle laid down in the above cited case, applicant is entitled to Rs. 60,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of expectation of life.” 4. Learned advocate for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal has recorded that in the absence of any cogent and documentary evidence regarding income of applicant and considering the age of applicant and economy of year 1997 Tribunal is left with no alternative, but to assess notional income of the applicant at the rate of 8000/- p.m. and yearly income would come to Rs. 96,000/- p.a. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that it has come on record that the father of the claimant was having 10 vighas of land and he had four sons including the claimant. Thus, the land ad measuring 2 vighas comes to the share of the claimant. Beside that, the land is situated in District Panchmahals near Godhra. That being so, it is a matter of which judicial notice can be taken that it is not a fertile land like that of South Gujarat and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income as aforesaid. 6. Beside that, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the claimant has not produced any material to show either purchase of cattle or sale of cattle as his case is that after accident, he was not able to undertake the milk business and he has sold off his cattle. 7. The matter requires consideration.