JUDGMENT : Paran Kumar Phukan, J. These two appeals, one preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation (MAC Appeal 140/2009) and the other filed by the Insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (MAC Appeal No. 16 of 2009) for reduction of the same, are directed against the judgment and award dated 15.10.2008 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 358/2001. Common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals and as such are taken up together for discussion and decision for the sake of convenience and brevity. The parties herein are referred to as claimant and insurer. 2. There is no dispute regarding the factum of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident which occurred on 28.03.2000 on the National Highway 31 near GMC Gate, Amingaon involving Vehicle No. AS 01/B-6524 (Bus) and Vehicle bearing No. AS-25/B-2200 (Santro Car) which were insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 3. Only the owner and driver of the Santro Car along with the insurer of both the vehicles contested the case before the Tribunal and the case proceeded ex-parte against the driver and the owner of the bus involved in the accident. 4. The learned Member of the Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence, adduced by the claimant, came to the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus by the driver and accordingly directed the insurer to pay compensation. The accident taking place due to rash driving of the bus has not been seriously disputed. Moreover from the evidence of the claimant and the Accident Information Report, Ext. 14, it is evident that the bus dashed the Santro Car on the driver's side of the car and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. No contrary evidence has been adduced to negate the version of the claimant and his version appears to be truthful and acceptable and accordingly the insurer of the bus is liable to indemnify the claimant. 5. Now the pertinent question is how much compensation the claimant is entitled to considering the nature of the injuries sustained by him. The learned Member of the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,24,000/- for future loss of income and earning capacity, Rs. 73,000/- for physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life, Rs. 5. Now the pertinent question is how much compensation the claimant is entitled to considering the nature of the injuries sustained by him. The learned Member of the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,24,000/- for future loss of income and earning capacity, Rs. 73,000/- for physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life, Rs. 46,000/- for pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 1,57,000/- for medical treatment. 6. Heard Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant and Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 7. Mr. B. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate in comparison to the nature of the disabilities suffered by the claimant. According to him there was total loss of vision of both the eyes and apart from that there was slowness of all movement and disability should have been assessed accordingly. He also submits that no amount has been awarded towards future medical treatment and the amounts granted for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life was too low considering the permanent disability suffered by the claimant. 8. In controversion, Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the insurer submits that the loss of vision of the left eye at the time of initial examination was 50% and as such there was virtually no loss of income as the claimant could continue his flower decoration business as usual and his injuries did not impact his income. 9. From the records it is found that vide order dated 20.01.2015 this Court directed the Tribunal to allow the parties to adduce additional evidence and the matter was remanded to enable the claimant to examine the Doctor who examined him subsequently. Accordingly after remand of the case two doctors were examined. One of them is Dr. Pankaj Baruah, Registrar, Eye Department and Dr. Dipak Bhuyan, Associate Professor, Ophthalmology, RIO, GMCH. Dr. Pankaj Baruah who has been examined as P.W. 7 proved the medical certificate Ext. 27 issued by the GMCH and testified that the claimant suffered from bilateral optic atrophy and on the date of his examination his visual impairment was 100%. He proved the medical certificate Ext. 27 issued on 10.04.2014 and deposed that due to head injury both eyes of the claimant might have been affected subsequently. 10. Corroborating his evidence the other doctor, Dr. He proved the medical certificate Ext. 27 issued on 10.04.2014 and deposed that due to head injury both eyes of the claimant might have been affected subsequently. 10. Corroborating his evidence the other doctor, Dr. Dipak Bhuyan, Associate Professor, Ophthalmology, RIO, GMCH also testified that the visual impairment was 100% when he examined the claimant on 14.04.2014 and he also deposed that the trauma due to accident may cause visual impairment. His evidence reveals that on earlier examination of the patient on 13.10.2003, visual impairment was 75% but subsequently when he was examined again in 2014 there was drop of vision in the left eye which made the disability 100%. 11. Inviting my attention to the evidence of Dr. Dipak Bhuyan, Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the insurer, submits that although initially impairment was 75% in respect of both eyes, the drop of vision is to be reckoned from the date of his re-examination on 14.04.2014. The claimant himself deposed in his evidence recorded on 23.10.2003 that there was total loss of vision in respect of the right eye and there was diminution of vision of the left eye to some extent. He also testified that his working capacity was reduced to 50% and his father was helping him in his flower decoration business. It is not difficult to presume that there was gradual loss of vision of the left eye due to optic atrophy. When he was examined on 14.04.2014 again in the GMCH by Dr. Depak Bhuyan (P.W.8), loss of vision was found to be 100% in respect of the left eye also and total loss of vision in respect of both the eyes was 100%, which is suggestive that initially when the accident took place, there was 100% loss of vision of the right eye and 50% loss of vision of the left eye and due to gradual diminution it became 100% in respect of both the eyes. The Tribunal assessed the compensation on the basis of the earlier report which was issued soon after the accident, but the situation changed due to his re-examination in the year 2014 by an order of this Court which confirmed visual impairment of both the eyes at 100%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation on the basis of the earlier report which was issued soon after the accident, but the situation changed due to his re-examination in the year 2014 by an order of this Court which confirmed visual impairment of both the eyes at 100%. Obviously when the claimant resumed his flower decoration business after the accident his visual impairment of 50% in respect of his left eye did not impact his business significantly and he himself confirmed that his father helped him in his business and with the help of his father he was continuing his business as usual but due to demise of his father and gradual diminution of loss of vision which became 100% in 2014 it was not possible on his part to continue his business and according to him, having no other choice he had to close his business. 12. The Apex Court and the various High Courts laid down the principles for assessment of compensation in cases of permanent disablement and partial disablement some of which are mentioned below :- (2014) 11 SCC 178 (Head Note A/para 14 to 25): Injury Case (V. Meneka v. M. Malathi & Anr.) Head Note A Compensation - Just compensation Permanent disability - Heads under which compensation to be awarded-Loss of income, future prospects of income, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects, cost of medical care/prosthetics, attendant/assistant, and cost of litigation. MAC Apppeal 148/2003 (SB) D/o 11.08.11)- Injury Case (Remi Begum v. Rimutaz Ahmed) Claimant earns by doing tailoring and stitching - Referring Shanti Bai Case i.e. (1998) 5 SCC 359 , the court observed that even a labourer has some future economic prospects - "in the present case, I am dealing with a claimant who has some skill. It is, therefore, difficult to say that she had no future economic prospect. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the claimant is certainly entitled to an increase in compensation on the basis of future earning prospect" (page 3). As per submission of counsel of claimant, Rs. 500/- is added to her income of Rs. 2,500 per month for future economic prospect (page 4). (2012) 6 SCC 421 (Head Note A & para 8) ( Santosh Dev v. National Insurance Co. As per submission of counsel of claimant, Rs. 500/- is added to her income of Rs. 2,500 per month for future economic prospect (page 4). (2012) 6 SCC 421 (Head Note A & para 8) ( Santosh Dev v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) Besides Government Servant, said incremental enhancement, held is also applicable to self -employed person or those on fixed salary without the provision of annual increment, to the extent of 30% of annual income at the time of death - Rational why said increment is also applicable to self-employed persons explained - Tort Law-Compensation/Damages. (2014) 3 SCC 210 (3 Judges)- Head Note D & Para 16 -Injury Case (Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988- Section 168- Compensation - Computation - Future prospects of increase of income - Self employed person - Claimant aged 25 years and having steady income - Held, 50% increase to income that claimant was earning at the time of accident justified (para 16). Injury Case : Particulars of injury : Age -25 years (para 10) Status -Married having 1 years child (para 10) Annual Income 41,300/- (para 12) Injury - fracture of spinal cord resulting in paralysis of whole body (para 3). Permanent Disability - 100% (para 9) Supreme Court granted : Loss of Income, including Future prospects Rs. 10,53,150/- Medical Expenses Rs. 1,38,552/- For Pain and Suffering & Mental agony Rs. 3,00,000/- Loss of Amenities Rs. 2,00,000/- Cost of Attendan Rs. 2,00,000/- (2014) 11 SCC 178 (para 20) Injury Case (V. Meleka v. M. Malathi & Anr.) Further, the High Court failed to take into consideration the future prospects of income based on the principles laid down by this court in the catena of cases referred to supra. Therefore, the appellant is justified in seeking for re-enhancement under this head as well and we hold that the appellant claimant is entitled to 50% increase under this head as per the principle laid down by this court in Sontosh Devi. (2012) 6 SCC 421 - Sontosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Injury Case : Particulars of injury : Status - Brilliant Student, secured 1st class in class X. studying class XI National Annual Income taken Rs. 10,000/- Injury - Due to fracture injury, both her legs injured, unable to work without cruches Permanent Disability - 70% Compensation granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court: Loss of income, including Future prospects Rs. Ltd. Injury Case : Particulars of injury : Status - Brilliant Student, secured 1st class in class X. studying class XI National Annual Income taken Rs. 10,000/- Injury - Due to fracture injury, both her legs injured, unable to work without cruches Permanent Disability - 70% Compensation granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court: Loss of income, including Future prospects Rs. 22,68,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 1,38,552/- For Pain and Suffering & Mental Agony Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of Amenity and Attendant Charges Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Marriage prospect Rs. 3,00,000/- Cost of Litigation Rs. 25,000/- (2014) 4 SCC 735 (Head Note C/para 10) : Injury Case (Syed Sadiq & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) Calculation of prospective increment and self employed people claimant a vegetable vendor, aged about 24 years suffering 85% functional disability in motor accident Held, is entitled to 50% increment in future prospect of Income (Head Note C/para 10). 4. The Contention of The Insurance Co. That The Appellant (Who Suffer 70% Permanent Disability) Can Still Finish Her Education And Find Employement and therefore there is no necessity to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of "loss of income" and "future prospects", was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court interalia, by holding that a tortfeasor is not entitled to dictate the terms of the appellant claimant's carrier. (See para 18/page 187 of V. Mekela Case) (2014) 11 SCC 178 (Head Note B/para 18 page 187) of V. Mekela Case )- V. Mekela v. M. Malathi & Anr. 4. Pain And Suffering : (1995) 1 SCC 551 (para 17) R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. Permanent Disability 100%: Advocate by profession : Age 52 years Apex Court allowed Rs. 1,50,000/- (see para 17/page 559) (2011) 10 SCC 683 (para 26) (Govind Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) Permanent Disability 70 %: Occupation helper : amputation of one leg : Age 24 years Apex Court allowed Rs. 1,50,000/- (see para 26/page 695) (2014) 11 SCC 178 (para 21) (V. Mekala v. M. Malathi & Anr.) Permanent Disability 70 %: Student aged 16 years Apex Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- (see para 21/page 190) (2014) 3 SCC 210 (3 Judges) (Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways) Permanent Disability 100 %: Age 25 years : Self employed Apex Court allowed Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- (see para 21/page 190) (2014) 3 SCC 210 (3 Judges) (Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways) Permanent Disability 100 %: Age 25 years : Self employed Apex Court allowed Rs. 3,00,000/- (see para 20/page 217) Loss of Amenities of Life : (1995) 1 SCC 551 (para 17) R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. Permanent Disability 100 %: Advocate by profession : Age 52 years Apex Court allowed Rs. 1,50,000/- (see para 17/page 559) (2011) 10 SCC 683 para 27 (Govind Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) Permanent Disability 70 %: Occupation helper amputation of one leg : Age 24 years Apex Court allowed Rs. 1,50,000/- (see para 27/page 695) (2014) 11 SCC 178 (para 22) (V. Mekala v. M. Malathi & Anr.) Permanent Disability 70 %: Student aged 16 years Apex Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- (see para 22 page 190) Cost of Attendant : (1995) 1 SCC 551 (para 16) R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. Permanent Disability 100 %: Apex Court allowed Rs. 2,42,650/- (see para 16/page 558) (2014) 11 SCC 178 (V. Mekala v. M. Malathi & Anr.) Permanent Disability 70 %: Student aged 16 years Apex Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- (see para 21 page 190) (2014) 3 SCC 210 (3 Judges) (Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways) Permanent Disability 100 %: Age 25 years: Self employed Apex Court allowed Rs. 3,00,000/- (see para 20/page 217) 13. In this case compensation is to be assessed for two different periods. The first period commenced from the date of his initial examination where loss of vision in respect of the left eye was about 50% and the next period is to be considered from 2014 which is the year of his re-examination which confirmed visual impairment at 100%. It is difficult in such a situation to award compensation for two different periods and some guess work is required to be done. In my considered view instead of making assessment for two different periods it would be appropriate if the average visual impairment for the entire period commencing from the date of the accident is taken to be 80% in respect of both the eyes. 14. Accordingly taking into considering the vocation of the claimant the functional disability suffered by him due to 80% visual impairment is assessed at 60%. 14. Accordingly taking into considering the vocation of the claimant the functional disability suffered by him due to 80% visual impairment is assessed at 60%. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the Income Tax Return filed by the claimant just prior to the accident came to the finding that his annual income was 60,000/- which in my considered view calls for no interference. Therefore considering the age of the victim (25 years) the total amount of compensation under this head is calculated at Rs. 60,000 X 60/100 X 18 (appropriate multiplier) = Rs. 6,48,000/-. 15. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that in computing the amount due to the claimant on account of his loss of income, future prospects of increase of income has not been taken into consideration by the learned Member of the Tribunal. 16. Flower decoration business is flourishing nowadays and flowers are in great demand in all functions and marriages etc and obviously the income of the claimant would not be static at Rs. 60,000/- per annum. Following the principle of Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) 14 SCC 575 and Santosh Devi's case, (2012) 6 SCC 421 and also considering the age of the claimant it would be proper in my considered opinion to add 50% to the income that the claimant was earning at the time of the accident. With the addition of 50%, the total loss of income would be Rs. 9,72,000/- (Rs. 6,48,000 + 60,000 X 18 X Rs. 60/100 X 50/100). 17. In so far as the amount awarded for pain and suffering is concerned the learned counsel has submitted that not only the amount of Rs. 73,000/- which is grossly inadequate, the learned Member also committed error by clubbing together pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life to award the aforesaid amount of compensation. Mr. Jain submits that the amounts are liable to be enhanced considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. 18. I find substantial force in the submission. He lost vision of both the eyes and there is restriction of movement. Considering the nature of injuries sustained Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded for pain and suffering and Rs. 75,000/- for loss of amenities of life. The nature of his injuries obviously would require future medical treatment although the amount cannot be quantified exactly, Rs. He lost vision of both the eyes and there is restriction of movement. Considering the nature of injuries sustained Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded for pain and suffering and Rs. 75,000/- for loss of amenities of life. The nature of his injuries obviously would require future medical treatment although the amount cannot be quantified exactly, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards future medical treatment. Since the claimant became blind he will definitely require services of an attendant to take care of his daily requirements and as such Rs. 1 lakh is awarded as cost of attendant. 19. From the medical treatment documents the learned Member of the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,57,000/- on the basis of the medical vouchers and treatment documents filed by the claimant and he is entitled to the said amount towards medical expenses. 20. The claimant is accordingly entitled to the following - Medical Expenses Rs. 1,57,000/- Future Medical Expenses Rs. 50,000/- Loss of Income(Both present and future) Rs. 9,72,000/- Pain & Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of amenities of life Rs. 75,000/- Cost of Attendant Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 14,54,000/- 21. The compensation amount is accordingly enhanced from Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs. 14,54,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand). The amount shall carry interest of Rs. 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the case till payment. Interim payment, if paid, shall be adjusted. Statutory deposit shall be refunded to the insurer. 22. Send down the LCR.