JUDGMENT Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. The appellant-original claimant has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special), Porbandar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') dated 18.5.2002 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 237 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'claim petition'). Briefly stated facts are as under. On the date of accident viz., 6.7.1997 the appellant along with his brother--Arbhambhai Lilabhai Mokaria was travelling on his motorcycle at about 12.00 Noon. They were going from their village Pata towards Madhavpur. The claimant was driving the motorcycle and his brother was pillion rider. According to the claimant his motor cycle had a puncture, because of a ditch on the road. At that time another motorcycle was coming from opposite side and the two vehicles collided with each other. The claimant received serious head injuries rendering him paraplegic. Despite expensive medical treatment his condition did not improve. He, therefore, filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lacs from the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident. The claimant was running a pan shop in his village and was earning Rs. 2,000 per month. He was aged 30 years on the date of the accident. 2. Before the Claims Tribunal the claimant examined the pillion rider, brother of claimant-Arbhambhai as witness No. 1-Exh. 37. The claimant also examined Dr. Nimish Trivedi at Exh. 47. F.I.R. lodged by other motorcyclist, Panchnama of scene of accident drawn by the investigating agency and the medical certificate were produced at exhibits 27, 28 and 48 respectively. 3. On the basis of evidence on record Claims Tribunal held both the motor cyclists equally negligent in causing the accident. In other words, contributory negligence was attached to the claimant himself. On the question of quantum of compensation the Claims Tribunal has awarded following sums: Head Compensation amount Pain, shock and suffering Rs.50,000 Expenditure towards medical treatment Rs.1,00,000 Attendant Charges Rs.30,000 Transportation Rs.20,000 Special diet Rs.15,000 Actual loss of income for 6 months Rs,.12,000 Future loss of income Rs.2,75,000 4. By accepting the income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000 per month, the Claims Tribunal however, deducted Rs. 500 on the basis of evidence of witness No. 1, who has stated that his cousin was now running the pan shop and giving Rs. 500 to the family. By accepting the income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000 per month, the Claims Tribunal however, deducted Rs. 500 on the basis of evidence of witness No. 1, who has stated that his cousin was now running the pan shop and giving Rs. 500 to the family. The Claims Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15 and assessed 100% loss of income to arrive at the said figure. Total sum of Rs. 4,97,000 thus is computed by the Claims Tribunal, divided by 2, for contributory negligence of the claimant himself. In effect, therefore, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,48,500. The claimant has, therefore, filed this appeal. 5. We may first briefly summarise the evidence on record. Witness No. 1 Arbhambhai Lilabhai Mokaria, brother of the claimant, at Exh. 37 deposed that on the date of accident he was sitting behind the motorcycle driven by his brother. They were going from their village Pata towards Madhavpur. On the road there was a dent. When the motorcycle passed through this portion the tyre got punctured. At that time another motorcycle was coming from the opposite side causing accident in which his brother - Karabhai received head injuries. He was firstly taken to a hospital at Porbandar. After preliminary treatment he was shifted to Gondhia Hospital at Rajkot where he was treated as in-door patient for 2 1/2 months by Dr. Prakash Modha and Dr. Trivedi. After being discharged also his brother had to be taken to doctors once in every 15 days. Such treatment is going even now. Due to head injuries he is unable to speak or walk. He is also not able to move. Someone has to help him in his daily pursuits. He has spent Rs. 1.5 lac to Rs. 2.0 lac for treatment of his brother. He had to be lifted and put in a car for being taken for medical treatment. At the time of accident he was running pan shop and was earning Rs. 2,000 per month. He was engaged with a girl at Madhavpur. After the accident such engagement has been broken. At the time of accident the opposite motor cycle was carrying three persons. 5(A) In cross-examination he has stated that he was sitting behind his brother on motor cycle. Speed of motorcycle was about 25-30 KMs per hour at the time of accident. He was engaged with a girl at Madhavpur. After the accident such engagement has been broken. At the time of accident the opposite motor cycle was carrying three persons. 5(A) In cross-examination he has stated that he was sitting behind his brother on motor cycle. Speed of motorcycle was about 25-30 KMs per hour at the time of accident. He agreed that the accident took place at the middle of the road. He further stated that pan shop is now being run by his nephew and from the income he gives Rs. 400 to Rs. 500 to the claimant. 6. In the F.I.R. Exh. 27 which was lodged by driver of other motorcycle he also stated that they were three persons on the motorcycle at the time of accident. Panchnama of scene of offence Exh. 28 records that both the motor cycles were lying on the road and point of impact was somewhere in the middle of the road. It also records that the accident took place on road, which is east to west called 'Coastal Highway'. 7. Dr. Nimish P. Trivedi, witness No. 2, Exh. 47 had treated the claimant at Gondhia Hospital at Rajkot. He deposed that he was head of Neurosurgery Division of the said hospital and also had private practice. He had treated the claimant as in-door patient. After discharge from the hospital also patient had to visit once in every 15 days or so. He had also treated the patient in his private clinic. The patient still continues to receive treatment from him. He estimated the cost of medical treatment at about Rs. 1.5 lac. He had given disability certificate, Exh. 48. According to him, the patient was unable to make any movement and had suffered mentally too. 7(a) In the cross-examination he denied that in future there was any scope for improvement. He also denied that disability could be assessed as 50% of the body as a whole. 8. In his disability certificate Exh. 48 he had certified that the patient was unable to walk, speak, he had complains of forgetfulness, disorientation, lack of comprehension and disturbance in all complex central functions. He had impairment of recent memory. He was unable to walk, but was able to sit with support. He was unable to stand without assistance. Dr. 8. In his disability certificate Exh. 48 he had certified that the patient was unable to walk, speak, he had complains of forgetfulness, disorientation, lack of comprehension and disturbance in all complex central functions. He had impairment of recent memory. He was unable to walk, but was able to sit with support. He was unable to stand without assistance. Dr. Nimish P. Trivedi concluded that the patient had permanent disability of 75% of the body as a whole. 9. On the basis of such evidence on record, we may first address the question of negligence. We may recall that two vehicles were moving in opposite direction in a broad day light on highway. According to the Panchnama and also according to the claimant's own witness, the point of impact was in the middle of the road. However, we must ascertain the cause of such accident. According to witness No. 1, the motor cycle of the injured passed through a dent on the road leading to tyre puncture. The other motorcycle was coming from the opposite side. He was carrying three passengers. Under the circumstances, the conclusion of the Claims Tribunal that both the motor cyclists were equally negligent is erroneous finding. Was the motorcyclist coming from the opposite direction not carrying three passengers, surely the accident could have been avoided. If he had been driving the motorcycle safely and on the correct side of the road once again despite the claimant losing balance the accident would surely have been avoided. Merely because the point of impact was middle of the road it would not automatically mean that both the motorcyclists were equally negligent, more so, since the accident took place not only on a narrow road, but State Highway, which obviously has sufficient width. Considering these aspects of the matter I hold that respondent No. 1 driver of other motorcycle is negligent to the extent of 75%. Rest of negligence could be attributed to the claimant himself. 10. Coming to the question of compensation the Claims Tribunal has awarded rather a conservative amount on almost all the heads. As noted hereinabove, the claimant has received head injuries resulting into permanent disability. He was unable to stand leave alone walk without assistance. His mental faculties received extensive damage. His comprehension and memory suffered impairment. 10. Coming to the question of compensation the Claims Tribunal has awarded rather a conservative amount on almost all the heads. As noted hereinabove, the claimant has received head injuries resulting into permanent disability. He was unable to stand leave alone walk without assistance. His mental faculties received extensive damage. His comprehension and memory suffered impairment. Under the circumstances he would be completely dependent on someone even in his most daily pursuits life long. Therefore, he would not be able to move like a normal person, nor would he be able to follow his daily routine. Even considering that accident is old one, amount of Rs. 1 lac towards pain, shock and suffering would be justified. 11. The claimant was treated as an in-door patient for 2 1/2 months. Thereafter, he had to visit doctor regularly every 15 days initially, thereafter once in a month. Dr. Nimish Trivedi, witness No. 2 estimated medical expenses at about Rs. 1.5 lac. Such amount therefore, be awarded towards medical expenses. 12. The claimant would further receive Rs. 50,000 towards attendant charges considering the fact that he needs attendant life long. Remaining amount towards transportation and special diet remains unchanged. So also Rs. 12,000 towards actual loss of income for 6 months. 13. Coming to the question of future loss of income the Tribunal believed that income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000 per month, but committed error in deducting Rs. 500 on the statement of witness No. 1 viz. nephew was running the pan shop and giving Rs. 400 to Rs. 500 every month to the family. This was understandably only a family arrangement and had no guarantee of being continued. The Claims Tribunal has also committed error in not considering any future rise in income. The claimant was aged barely 30 years at the time of accident. He has long life ahead. Even taking into account devaluation of rupee assessing income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000 is not justified. The Claims Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15, which will have to be increased to 17. The claimant was aged barely 30 years at the time of accident. He has long life ahead. Even taking into account devaluation of rupee assessing income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000 is not justified. The Claims Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15, which will have to be increased to 17. Considering the judgment in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, in (2009) ACC 708 (SC) : VI (2009) SLT 663 : 162 (2009) DLT 278 (SC) : (2009) 6 SCC 121 , computation of future loss of income thus, would be as under: Income at the time of accident Rs.2,000 per month Future rise 20% It would bring to Rs.2,600 per month Multiplied by 12 Rs.31,200 per annum Apply multiplier 17 Rs.5,30,400 Total computation would work out as under: Head Compensation amount Pain, shock and suffering Rs.1,00,000 Expenditure towards medical treatment Rs.1,50,000 Attendant charges Rs.50,000 Transportation Rs.20,000 Special diet Rs.15,000 Actual loss of income for 6 months Rs.12,000 Future loss of income Rs.5,30,400 Total Rs.8,77,400 Rounded to Rs.8,80,000 Reduction towards claimant’s negligence at the rate of 25% Rs.2,20,000 Net amount left for the claimant Rs.6,60,000 Amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal Rs.2,48,500 Additional compensation the claimant would receive Rs.4,11,500 Said amount of Rs. 4,11,500 would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till actual payment. Such amount be deposited before the Claims Tribunal latest by 31st October, 2015. The First Appeal is allowed in part. Disposed of accordingly. Record and Proceedings be transmitted to the Trial Court. Appeal Partly Allowed