JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Sabarkantha (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal' for short) in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1283 of 2008 dated 7.8.2013, by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,59,200/- towards the compensation to the original claimant for the permanent partial disability sustained by the injured husband of the original claimant, appellant herein-original claimant has preferred the present first appeal. That in a vehicular accident which took place on 24.1.2008, husband of the original claimant-injured has sustained serious and grievous injuries, due to which he has sustained 98 per cent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. 1.1 That on account of the injuries, the injured had become unconscious and was admitted to hospital and subsequently he became conscious and was able to open his eyes. However, he does not follow the commands and was and is fully dependent on the relatives/family members for his routine activities. Therefore, the original claimant-wife of the injured filed claim petition for and on behalf of her husband claiming Rs. 36,00,000/- as compensation. 1.2 That the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company submitted purshis accepting permanent partial disability at 80 per cent of the body as a whole. However, on appreciation of evidence and considering the position of the injured and more particularly considering the fact that he is not in a position to do his routine work and would not be able to do his routine activities in future also, the learned Tribunal has considered functional disability at 100 per cent. 1.3 That on appreciation of evidence learned Claims Tribunal has considered the income of the injured at Rs. 5,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 60,000/- per annum and applying multiplier of 14, awarded a sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- towards compensation under the head of future economic loss. 1.4 That the learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 1,09,900/- towards medical treatment; Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering; Rs. 50,000/- for attendant and transportation; Rs. 50,000/- for special treatment; Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and as the learned Tribunal has held the injured contributory negligent to the extent of 20 per cent, after deducting Rs. 1,09,900/- towards medical treatment; Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering; Rs. 50,000/- for attendant and transportation; Rs. 50,000/- for special treatment; Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and as the learned Tribunal has held the injured contributory negligent to the extent of 20 per cent, after deducting Rs. 2,31,800/- from the total amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 11,99,000/-, by the impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,59,200/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 1.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, appellant herein-original claimant-wife of the injured has preferred the present first appeal. 2. Mr. Manish Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 8,40,000/- only under the head of future economic loss. 2.1 Mr. Manish Patel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased and/or awarding loss of income at Rs. 5,000/- per month only. It is submitted that considering the fact that the injured is having large area of agricultural land and due to injuries, there is total loss of agricultural income, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the injured at least at Rs. 20,000/- per month. 2.2 Mr. Manish Patel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying multiplier of 14, though the age of the injured at the time of accident was 39 years. 2.3 Mr. Manish Patel has further submitted that since due to the accidental injuries the injured was rendered unconscious and he was bedridden and at present also he is bedridden and his brain is damaged and he needs constant attention for the daily pursuits and even needs constant medical treatment, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- only towards special treatment. 2.4 Mr. Manish Patel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- only under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 2.5 Mr. Manish Patel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- only towards attendant and transportation, etc. 2.6 Mr. 50,000/- only towards special treatment. 2.4 Mr. Manish Patel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- only under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 2.5 Mr. Manish Patel has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- only towards attendant and transportation, etc. 2.6 Mr. Manish Patel has further submitted that as the injured is unconscious since the date of accident and thereafter though has gained consciousness, as per the certificate of the doctor he could open his eyes only and even does not follow the commands and is fully dependent on the family members for his daily activities like urine, stool function, eating, bathing, wearing clothes, etc. and is not in a position even to speak, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- only towards loss of amenities of life. Making above submissions, Mr. Manish Patel, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has requested to allow the present appeal. 3. Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, has tried to oppose the present appeal by submitting that as such no error has been committed by learned Claims Tribunal in awarding Rs. 9,59,200/- as compensation. 3.1 Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that as such though the permanent partial disability has been assessed by the doctor at 80 per cent of the body as a whole, the learned Tribunal has considered functional disability at 100 per cent. 3.2 Mr. Alkesh Shah has further submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence on record with regard to income/ agricultural income of the injured, more particularly Rs. 20,000/- per month, as contended on behalf of the original claimant and considering the fact that the land has been jointly held and possessed by the injured and his brother and agricultural activities could have been continued by employing persons, the learned Tribunal has, as such, rightly awarded Rs. 5,000/- per month towards supervisory loss. 3.3 Mr. Alkesh Shah has further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just compensation which is not required to be interfered with by this court. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5,000/- per month towards supervisory loss. 3.3 Mr. Alkesh Shah has further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just compensation which is not required to be interfered with by this court. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 4.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in a vehicular accident the injured had sustained serious injuries and he had become unconscious and was hospitalized for a number of months and a number of operations were performed on him at SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad. It appears that he became conscious and could open his eyes, however, he is not in a position to follow the commands. As per the evidence on record, more particularly certificate issued by Pramukh Neurosurgical Hospital, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, he is fully dependent on the family members for his daily routine activities like urine, stool function, eating, bathing, wearing clothes, etc. and is not in a position even to speak. He was having hemiplegia and spasticity of all four limbs. He is also having some neurological defects. Therefore, as such the doctor has assessed 98 per cent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. The certificate of the doctor, under whom the injured is under treatment, namely, Dr. Dipak K. Patel, M.S.M. Ch. (Neuro), Consultant Neurosurgeon, reads as under: "This is to certify that Devendra Premjibhai Patel, aged 42, suffered road accident on 24.1.2008. He was unconscious since the accidental injury. He was admitted on 24.1.2008 at SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad under my care. He was operated for Rt. Frantotamer parietal large subdural haematoma on the same night. His C.T. scan brain also showed bilateral multiple haemorrhagic contusions with sub-oraehhold haemorrhage. He was discharged from SAL Hospital on 28.2.2008. He also had fracture of left radius bone and fracture of transverse process of Rt. C5 vertebra. He was then under care of Dr. Minesh Gandhi, M.S. (Gen. Surgeon) at Bayad. He was on PCG feeding. He was re-admitted at SAL Hospital for tracheotomy closure on 12.5.2008 and discharged on 14.5.2008. He had tolerated well the tracheotomy closure. His last clinical examination findings were as follows. He was fully dependent on the relatives for his daily routine activities like stool function, urine, eating, bathing, wearing clothes, etc. He was not speaking. He was on PCG feeding. He was re-admitted at SAL Hospital for tracheotomy closure on 12.5.2008 and discharged on 14.5.2008. He had tolerated well the tracheotomy closure. His last clinical examination findings were as follows. He was fully dependent on the relatives for his daily routine activities like stool function, urine, eating, bathing, wearing clothes, etc. He was not speaking. He was having right hemiplegia and spasticity of all four limbs. He was unable to walk or sit without active support. His vital signs were within normal limits. At present he is on tab Epscline, 100 mg. 1-1-1 and tab. Clanotril 0.5 mg. 1 Hs. He is having several neurological deficits. Considering the above facts he has total disability of 98 per cent (ninety-eight per cent as a whole person). Sd/- Illegible. Dr. Dipak D. Patel, M.S.M. Ch.(Neuro) Consultant Neurosurgeon" Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation is required to be re-assessed and re-determined. 4.2 It is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has held the injured motorcyclist contributory negligent to the extent of 20 per cent. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is not in a position to satisfy the court as to how the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal holding the injured motorcyclist contributory negligent to the extent of 20 per cent can be said to be erroneous. It is required to be noted that both the vehicles, more particularly motorcyclist, dashed head-on and there was head-on collision. The injured was just entering the main road from the approach road and, therefore, while entering the main road, the injured motorcyclist was also required to take some more care. Under the circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the injured motorcyclist contributory negligent to the extent of 20 per cent is not required to be interfered with and the said finding is hereby confirmed. 4.3 Now, so far as awarding Rs. 9,59,200/- as compensation under different heads is concerned, it appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,40,000/- for future economic loss considering the functional disability at 100 per cent and supervisory loss at Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is required to be noted that no documentary evidence has been produced on record to show the income/agricultural income of the injured. 8,40,000/- for future economic loss considering the functional disability at 100 per cent and supervisory loss at Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is required to be noted that no documentary evidence has been produced on record to show the income/agricultural income of the injured. It is not in dispute that the agricultural land/parcels of agricultural land are jointly held by the injured and his brother. Nothing is on record to show what type of crops were being grown. As observed by the learned Tribunal, agricultural activities can be continued by employing persons and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has considered supervisory loss at Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, it is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future rise of expenses by employing the persons for operation of the agricultural activities. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the supervisory loss is considered at Rs. 7,500/- per month, it will meet the ends of justice and it will be in the fitness of things. 4.4 As the injured is within the age group of 41 to 45 years, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 14. Under the circumstances and considering 100 per cent functional disability and considering supervisory loss at Rs. 7,500/- per month, loss of future income would come to Rs. 12,60,000/-. 4.5 From the impugned judgment and award it appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,09,000/- towards medical treatment. Considering the fact that claimant has produced the bills of Rs. 1,09,000/- only, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in awarding Rs. 1,09,000/- towards medical treatment. 4.6 From the impugned judgment and award it appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. Considering the permanent partial disability sustained by the injured; hospitalisation; medical treatment; operations performed on the injured; and considering the fact that the injured had fracture of left radius bone and fracture of transverse process of right C5 vertebra, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. 4.7 The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000 for attendant and transportation charges. 1,50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. 4.7 The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000 for attendant and transportation charges. Considering the fact that injured is residing at village Radodara, Taluka Bayad, in District Sabarkantha which is approximately 200 to 250 km away from Ahmedabad where the injured is taking treatment, more particularly at SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards attendant charges, transportation, etc. 4.8 Considering the fact that the injured was initially unconscious for a number of days and in future also he will have to take medical treatment and medical treatment is still continuing, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- only towards special treatment. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the physical condition of the injured, as mentioned in the medical certificate, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 2,00,000/- towards special treatment/medical treatment, attendant charges, transportation, etc. 4.9 Considering the fact that the injured has sustained 98 per cent disability of the body as a whole and considering the fact that the injured is not in a position to even speak and is bedridden and is fully dependent on his relatives/family members for his routine activities, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 2,50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. In view of the above, claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 20,69,000/- towards compensation under different heads as under: After deducting Rs. 4,13,800/- towards contributory negligence of the injured (20 per cent negligence), the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 16,56,000/- as compensation from the original opponents with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Sabarkantha in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1283 of 2008 dated 7.8.2013 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 16,56,000/- towards compensation from all the original opponents-respondents herein with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 16,56,000/- towards compensation from all the original opponents-respondents herein with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Enhanced amount of compensation shall be deposited by the respondents, more particularly respondent No. 3 herein, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., with the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. Present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.