JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.1.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,18,189/- as compensation to the respondent for the injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 22.4.2013. 2. The application was filed by the respondent inter-alia with the averments that he was going on road on foot when the offending trailer, which was being driven by Mr. Ramswaroop, struck him resulting in receiving grievous injuries. It was claimed that the claimant suffered paralysis in lower trunk and lower limbs, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing greasing of the vehicles. 3. The application was opposed by the non-claimants. 4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trailer, which resulted in the injuries to the claimant. 5. While determining the amount of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no proof regarding the income of Rs.10,000/- per month of the injured and applying minimum wages determined the manual income at Rs. 4,316/-, awarded Rs. 1 lac towards mental pain, Rs.8,400/- towards 14 days' hospitalization, Rs. 61,405/- towards medical expenses and after taking 50% towards future prospects and applying multiplier of 18, awarded a sum of Rs.13,98,384/- towards loss of future income at 100%, Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities and in all awarded sum of Rs. 16,18,189/- along with interest as noticed herein-before. 6. The appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal was not justified in granting future prospects at 50% to the injured, inasmuch as, he was not in any stable job and therefore, as the matter is pending consideration before the Larger Bench in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors.: SLP (Civil) No.8058/2014, the appeal requires consideration. 8. It is further submitted that the Tribunal did not consider that though the medical board has indicated 100% disablement, still the injured can do something and therefore, the loss of income at 100% was not justified. 9. Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors.: SLP (Civil) No.8058/2014, the appeal requires consideration. 8. It is further submitted that the Tribunal did not consider that though the medical board has indicated 100% disablement, still the injured can do something and therefore, the loss of income at 100% was not justified. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 10. A perusal of the medical certificate Ex.-38 indicates that the medical board found physical impairment of 100% as both lower limbs and lower trunk of the injured was paralysed. Dr. Rajnish Sharma (AW-2) appeared in the witness box, who proved the disability certificate and indicated that besides the said disablement, the injured has lost continence of urine and stool also. In view of the fact that the injured was doing the work of greasing of the vehicles, and the fact that he had suffered 100% disablement of the nature, wherein his lower trunk as well as both the lower limbs were paralysed, the indication of 100% disablement and loss of income at 100% cannot be said to be contrary to the material available on record. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq and Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735 , while considering a similar nature case came to the conclusion that in the manual labour cases where loss of limb is equivalent to loss of livelihood, the same has to be taken as 100% disability. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the consideration of loss of future income including future prospects and held that in cases of compensation towards injury suffered, the amount of future prospects has to be awarded. 12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the consideration of loss of future income including future prospects and held that in cases of compensation towards injury suffered, the amount of future prospects has to be awarded. 12. So far as the pendency of the matter in the case of Smt. Pushpa (supra) before Larger Bench is concerned, the cases of awarding future prospects in the case of death and in the case of injury to the claimant has to be viewed from a different angle inasmuch as, the fact that a person is dead and he was not in stable employment may have implication, however, once a person is injured and is suffering, the fact that in case he was to work, he would definitely earn more than what he was earning at the point of time, which fact is also fortified from the fact that the minimum wages even for un-skilled workman have also been steadily increased over a period of time. In view thereof, the challenge to grant of future prospects has no substance. 13. So far as alleged non-consideration of any other work being undertaken by the injured is concerned, from the fact that the injured was doing the work of greasing of the vehicle i.e. manual labour and suffered paralysis from the lower limbs as well as lower trunk, assessment of Tribunal, that the claimant would not be in a position to do anything worthwhile, deserves to be upheld. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.