JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 240/1998, the appellant herein - original claimant has preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation. 2. It is not in dispute that in a vehicular accident which occurred on 10.09.1997, the appellant herein - original claimant sustained serious injuries and also sustained permanent partial disablement and even his right leg was required to be amputated below the knee. The aforesaid is not disputed by the respondents herein - original opponents. Therefore, in the appeal what is required to be considered is whether the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal i.e. Rs. 3,93,170/- can be said to be just compensation awarded to the original claimant? 2.1 That in absence of any cogent evidence on record the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the original claimant at Rs. 2000/- per month and thereafter has considered the loss of income at Rs. 1400/- per month (being 70% of the notional income assessed) and thereafter applying multiplier of 15 the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,52,000/- towards future loss of income . That thereafter the learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,93,170/- under different heads as under:- Rs.2,52,000 Towards future loss of income Rs.1,00,000 Towards expenses for artificial leg and its maintenance Rs.25000 Towards pain, shock and suffering Rs.8000 Towards loss of income Rs.5000 Towards attendant & transportation expenses Rs.3170 Towards medical expenses Rs.3,93,170 Total 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the original claimant has preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation and requesting to award the just compensation. 3. Shri Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding the future loss of income considering the loss of income at Rs. 1400/- per month and applying the multiplier of 15. 3.1 It is submitted that accepting the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on notional income at Rs. 1400/- per month and applying the multiplier of 15. 3.1 It is submitted that accepting the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on notional income at Rs. 2000/per month as the claimant was aged 21 years of age at the time of accident, 50% of the same was required to be added as future rise in income and thereafter applying multiplier of 18, the learned Tribunal was required to award future loss of income. 3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant that the learned Tribunal has even erred in awarding Rs. 25,000/- only towards pain, shock and suffering. It is submitted that looking to the prolonged hospitalization and the medical treatment and that one leg of the claimant was required to be amputated below knee and even two steel rods were required to be inserted, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. It is further submitted by Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant that the learned Tribunal has not even awarded any amount towards loss of amenities in life. It is submitted that as the original claimant lost his right leg below the knee at the young age of 21 years, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. Making above submissions it is requested to modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and consequently allow the present First Appeal to the aforesaid extent. 4.0 Present First Appeal is opposed by Ms. Sejal Mandaviya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 herein - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "GSRTC"). 4.1 It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in assessing the income of the claimant notionally at Rs. 2000/- per month. 4.2 It is further submitted by Ms. Mandaviya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 herein - GSRTC that the learned Tribunal has as such committed a grave error in awarding future loss of income considering the permanent partial disability of body as a whole at 70%. 2000/- per month. 4.2 It is further submitted by Ms. Mandaviya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 herein - GSRTC that the learned Tribunal has as such committed a grave error in awarding future loss of income considering the permanent partial disability of body as a whole at 70%. It is submitted that even as per the deposition of Dr. Rashmikant who was examined at Exh.28, the permanent partial disability of body as a whole can be 50%. It is submitted that therefore even if the submission on behalf of the claimant that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the claimant at Rs. 3000/- per month (considering future rise in income) for the purpose of awarding future rise in income, in that case also, the aforesaid aspect is required to be considered. 4.3 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under head of pain, shock and suffering cannot be said to be on lower side. It is submitted that as such without any cogent evidence on record the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1 lac towards future medical treatment and/or the change of artificial leg etc. It is submitted that even the learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1 lac which was required to be incurred in future, which the claimant shall get in advance. 4.4 Ms. Mandaviya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the GSRTC has submitted that as such even as per the deposition of Doctor as well as the employer with whom the claimant was alleged to have been working, the original claimant can do the work in the field of diamond/polishing of the diamond. It is submitted that therefore as such there shall not be any loss of income to the original claimant. Making above submissions it is requested to pass appropriate order and/or dismiss the present appeal. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and gone through the entire evidence on record. At the outset it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and gone through the entire evidence on record. At the outset it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,93,170/- to the original claimant under different heads as under:- Rs.2,52,000 Towards future loss of income Rs.1,00,000 Towards expenses for artificial leg and its maintenance Rs.25,000 Towards pain, shock and suffering Rs.8,000 Towards loss of income Rs.5,000 Towards attendant & transportation expenses Rs.3,170 Towards medical expenses Rs.3,93,170 Total 5.1 From the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal it appears that while awarding future loss of income the learned Tribunal initially assessed the income of the original claimant notionally at Rs. 2000/- per month and thereafter considering 70% permanent partial disability, has awarded future loss of income at Rs. 1400/- per month and after applying the multiplier of 15, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,52,000/- towards future loss of income. However, it is required to be noted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 and as the original claimant was aged 21 years of age, 50% of Rs. 1000/- was required to be added while considering the future loss of income. However, learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the permanent partial disability at 70%. As per the deposition of the Dr. Rashmikant, who was examined at Exh.28, permanent partial disability can be assessed at 50%. The submission on behalf of the GSRTC that there shall not be any loss of income as, as per the deposition of the employer with whom the original claimant was alleged to have been working, the claimant can do the work of polishing of the diamond and therefore, there shall not be any loss in income is concerned, it is required to be noted that first of all the learned Tribunal has disbelieved the deposition of the employer who was examined by the original claimant. In any case considering the fact that the claimant sustained the permanent partial disability to the extent of 50% and his right leg below the knee was amputated, the same is likely to affect his capacity to earn. In any case considering the fact that the claimant sustained the permanent partial disability to the extent of 50% and his right leg below the knee was amputated, the same is likely to affect his capacity to earn. Under the circumstances, while awarding future loss of income, the permanent partial disability of the body as a whole at 50% is required to be considered. As the original claimant was aged 21 years of age, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), multiplier of 18 is required to be applied. Under the circumstances, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 3,24,000/- towards future loss of income. 5.2 The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- only under the head of pain, shock and suffering. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the claimant remained in hospital for the period between 10.09.1997 to 22.01.1998 and thereafter for the period between 17.03.1998 to 09.04.1998, there were complications and even his right leg was required to be amputated below the knee and even two steel rods were required to be inserted, if Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering, it can be said to be just compensation under the said head. 5.3 The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities in life. It is not in dispute that at the age of 21 years, the original claimant lost one leg i.e. his right leg below the knee was required to be amputated. Under the circumstances, the claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and the present appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present First Appeal is allowed in part. Impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 240/1998 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to Rs. Impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 240/1998 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 5,40,170/- towards compensation under different heads as under:- Rs.3,24,000 Towards future loss of income Rs.1,00,000 Towards expenses for artificial leg and its maintenance Rs.50,000 Towards pain, shock and suffering Rs.50,000 Towards loss of amenities in life Rs.8,000 Towards actual loss of income Rs.5,000 Towards attendant & transportation expenses Rs.3,170 Towards medical expenses Rs.5,40,170 Total The claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation, however on Rs. 4,40,170/only. The balance enhanced amount of compensation to be deposited by the respondent No. 2 herein - GSRTC with the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit the same be paid to the original claimant by Account Payee Cheque on proper identification and verification by the learned Tribunal itself. Present First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.