JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. D. K. Desai for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Hitesh N. Acharya for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 being owner of the vehicle in question though served has remained absent. Appellant is original claimant whereas respondents are original opponents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabarkantha @ Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 986 of 1999, wherein by impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2010, the tribunal has while allowing the application for compensation filed by the present appellant, awarded an amount of Rs.56,510/- with 9% interest and cost in favour of the claimant for the accidental injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident. 2. Though the appeal is mainly for quantum of compensation by the claimant and, thereby when there is no cross – appeal either by the owner or insurance company, now it becomes clear that victim of the accident and its result is not disputed. However, even for scrutinizing the impugned judgment that whether the award of compensation is just and reasonable or not, the basic information needs to be recollected before deciding this appeal finally. The relevant information can be summarized as under: Incident:- Appellant – claimant was walking towards his house from the marriage in the village on 06.05.1999, Jeep No. GJ-2-A-8378 owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 was driven by its driver respondent No.1 in such rash and negligent manner and in full speed that he could not control the same and thereby he dashed his jeep on the back of the appellant. Thereby appellant has sustained serious and grievous injuries on his both legs and more particularly fracture on his right leg. Therefore, appellant has claimed Rs.1,60,000/- . 3. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, following information is material:- Name of the victim Ramjibhai Becharbhai Damor Result of the incident Injured Age of the victim 50 years Occupation Agricultural work + Labour work + Cooking Income of the victim Rs.3,000/- p.m. as monthly income Injury Fracture of right shaft. Permanent disability of 18% of the lower limb, which is agreed to be considered as 10% for body as a whole Compensation awarded by the tribunal Rs.31,200/- towards future loss of income; Rs.7000/- towards pain, shock and suffering Rs.8,310/- towards medical charges; Rs.6000/- towards special diet; Rs.4000/- towards actual loss of income; Total: Rs.56,510/- 4. Permanent disability of 18% of the lower limb, which is agreed to be considered as 10% for body as a whole Compensation awarded by the tribunal Rs.31,200/- towards future loss of income; Rs.7000/- towards pain, shock and suffering Rs.8,310/- towards medical charges; Rs.6000/- towards special diet; Rs.4000/- towards actual loss of income; Total: Rs.56,510/- 4. In background of above details, if we peruse the available Records and Proceedings received from the tribunal, it becomes clear that there is categorical evidence by the claimant that he has to pay Rs.16,000/- to the doctor, which includes Rs.4000/- for room charges and Rs.5000/- towards operation charges, so also Rs.3500/- for transportation. Thereby, he has categorically deposed that he has to spend Rs.25000/- towards medicine and allied charges because of injuries sustained by him. Whereas, tribunal has awarded Rs.8310/- considering that, bills are only of such amount. It is admitted position that there cannot be bill of each and every item and, therefore, if there are bills of medicines for more than Rs.8000/- then it can certainly be considered that there would be similar or more expenditure for hospitalization etc. and only because appellant is unable to produce receipt by the doctor, it cannot be said that he has not spent anything for doctor and hospitalization charges etc. Though it can be said that one is supposed to prove such expenditure by reliable and cogent evidence, it cannot be ignored that victims are not litigants but they are claimants and they are not expected to collect documentary evidence first, rather than getting better treatment and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to ignore such fact and not to award reasonable amount on such count. Otherwise also even for the loss of earning capacity day in and day out, all the Courts are relying upon oral evidence and some presumption to arrive at reasonable amount, that may be awarded to such victim. Therefore, there is a scope of enhancement of an amount on actual expenditure. Similar is the situation for the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering; for which, only Rs.7000/- is awarded. Whereas, the fact remains that even before three decades this Court has considered an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering for simple fracture. Similar is the situation for the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering; for which, only Rs.7000/- is awarded. Whereas, the fact remains that even before three decades this Court has considered an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering for simple fracture. Therefore, even if we consider the inflation of the value of rupee and fluctuation of consumer protection index, minimum Rs.15,000/- needs to be awarded for pain, shock and suffering. 5. Similarly the consideration of monthly earning capacity of Rs.2000/- only is also unwarranted when there is no evidence in rebuttal at any count about monthly income either during cross-examination or by any other cogent and reliable evidence by the respondent. As usual it is evident from the Record and Proceedings that respondent has not adduced any evidence and, therefore, evidence by the claimant is not rebutted, then there is no reason to discard the evidence of the claimant only on the basis of presumption. If we peruse the deposition of the appellant and his cross – examination, it becomes clear that initially respondent has failed to cross examined the claimant and hence their right to cross – examination was closed but thereafter they were permitted to cross examine the claimant but there is nothing in the cross – examination of the claimant to show that whatever is stated by the claimant in his examination – in – chief, cannot be relied upon. It seems that tribunal has failed to rely upon one another affidavit dated 12.05.2010 of the claimant wherein he has explained the details of expenditure stating that in fact he has to pay Rs.37,000/- for treatment and transportation etc. when there is no cross examination, so far as contents of such affidavit is concerned, while cross examining the appellant, and when such affidavit is very well there on record, on the date of cross – examination, I do not see any reason to discard the contents of such affidavit. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances it can certainly be said that tribunal has failed to award just and reasonable compensation by not considering total earning capacity, in as much as, tribunal has failed to consider Rs.3000/- monthly income as disclosed by the claimant. 7. It is also evidence that tribunal has not considered prospective earning of the victim. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances it can certainly be said that tribunal has failed to award just and reasonable compensation by not considering total earning capacity, in as much as, tribunal has failed to consider Rs.3000/- monthly income as disclosed by the claimant. 7. It is also evidence that tribunal has not considered prospective earning of the victim. Therefore, I am of the view that considering the overall facts, circumstances and record, it would be appropriate to take Rs.3000/- as earning capacity including prospective earning and to award reasonable amount towards pain, shock and suffering so also towards medical and other expenses pursuant to available evidence on record. 8. In view of above facts, circumstances and discussion, considering the available material on record, it would be appropriate to revise the amount of compensation, awarded to the victim – claimant – appellant in following manner: Rs.46,800/- towards future loss of income, considering Rs.3000/- as monthly earning capacity and 10% disability taking multiplier of 13 as suitable multiplier; Rs.20,000/- towards pain shock and suffering Rs.20,00/- towards medical charges; Rs.10,000/- towards actual loss of income; Rs.6000/- towards special diet, which is need not to be increased. 8.1 Therefore, claimant is entitled to Rs.1,02,800/- as total amount of compensation, instead of Rs.56,510/- as awarded by the tribunal. If such amount is deposited then, claimant is entitled to additional Rs.46,290/-. 9. For my above view I am relying upon following citations: 9.1 In Sanjay V. Batham reported in AIR 2012 SC 459 , the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under : In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited (1995) 1 SCC 551 : ( AIR 1995 SC 755 ), this Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) 1 All ER 563, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed: "Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." In the same case, the Court further observed: "In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards." 9.2 In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1503), the three-Judge Bench was dealing with a case arising out of the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.1 crore, the Bench made the following observations which can appropriately be applied for deciding the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act: "At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity." 9.3 In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422 : (2009 AIR SCW 6999), this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below: "The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so. In the Indian context several other factors should be taken into consideration including education of the dependents and the nature of job. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so. In the Indian context several other factors should be taken into consideration including education of the dependents and the nature of job. In the wake of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely, the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. In fact while determining the multiplicand this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd . v. Jashuben held that even dearness allowance and perks with regard thereto from which the family would have derived monthly benefit, must be taken into consideration. One of the incidental issues which has also to be taken into consideration is inflation. Is the practice of taking inflation into consideration wholly incorrect? Unfortunately, unlike other developed countries in India there has been no scientific study. It is expected that with the rising inflation the rate of interest would go up. In India it does not happen. It, therefore, may be a relevant factor which may be taken into consideration for determining the actual ground reality. No hard-and-fast rule, however, can be laid down therefor." 9.4 In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010 AIR SCW 6085), the Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and had suffered 70% disability in a motor accident. After noticing factual matrix of the case, the Court observed: "We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered." 9.5 It cannot be ignored that for pain, shock and suffering, award of Rs.15,000/- has been suggested as back as in the year 1978 in the judgment rendered in the case of Babu Mansa v/s. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 1978 GLR 492 and thereafter, the same has been consistently approved and followed and ultimately the Honble Supreme Court has awarded more than Rs.50,000/- and even Rs.2 lac towards pain, shock and suffering for 50% disability in Sanjay Batham [supra]. As against that, in the present case, in the year 2015 the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- for pain, shock and suffering, which is nothing but mockery of judicial decisions by the Honble Supreme Court when Rs.15,000/- was awarded for simple fracture and 10 to 15% disability in the year 1978. Whereas in the present case, though disability is 36%, the Tribunal has considered it only at 12% and awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, which is certainly required to be increased and award under the head would be more than Rs.50,000/-. 10. It is also required to be considered here that there is fall in the value of rupee from the year 1978 till today and because of inflation, there is need to increase the quantum of compensation periodically and, therefore, even Rs.50,000/- would not be just and fair compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering alone. Thereby, if we consider all the decisions on the subject, which are not required to be listed herein, since it is settled legal position, it becomes clear that there is nothing abnormal in the award which requires this Court to interfere and to reduce the amount of compensation only because insurance company is not comfortable with such award and only because actual amount of take away salary of the victim is increased after the date of the accident. It cannot be ignored that salary of Government employees is generally increased after every six months because of increase in the dearness allowance, which makes it clear that practically it is not increase in the salary of the person but that increase is extended to the Government servants or other such salaried people because of fall in the value of rupee and inflation in the market and change in consumer price index so as to allow them to sustain and to continue to perform their duties. 10.1 Therefore, only because of some subsequent increase in the salary of the victim, it cannot be said that claimant is not entitled to any compensation as pleaded and submitted by the respondent. 11. In view of above facts and circumstances, appeal is allowed as aforesaid. Impugned judgment is modified to the effect that now claimant is entitled to receive total amount of Rs.1,02,800/- with 9% interest and cost. If respondents have already paid an amount of compensation as per impugned award, then they are liable to pay only difference in the amount to the claimants. 12. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Record and Proceedings be sent back forthwith.