JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned tribunal”) in MACP No.292/2006 by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said Claim Petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,86,000/- only towards compensation for the injuries and permanent disability sustained by him, original claimant has preferred the present First Appeal requesting to enhance the amount of compensation. 2. At the outset it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that in a vehicular accident, which occurred on 29/11/2005, the original injured claimant had sustained 100% disability and is suffering from paraplegia. Even as observed by the learned tribunal he is bed ridden for his entire life because of permanent disability. At the time of the accident, the original injured claimant was aged 17 years and according to him he was doing diamond polishing work and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. However, the fact that he was doing diamond polishing work and was earning Rs.5000/- per month is not substantiated by leading cogent evidence and the same has not been proved. The learned tribunal has assessed the income of the original injured claimant at Rs.1500/- per month i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum and after applying the multiplier of 15 the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.2,70,000/- only towards future loss of income. Thereafter, the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,86,000/- to the original injured claimant towards compensation under different heads; Rs.1,50,000/- pain, shock and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- attendance, rich diet & transport charges Rs.1,50,000/- loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life Rs.1,16,000/- medical bills and hospital charges Rs.2,70,000/- future loss of income Rs.7,86,000/- Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in awarding Rs.7,86,000/- only towards compensation to the original injured claimant, the original injured claimant has preferred the present First Appeal. 3. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – original injured claimant that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned tribunal has committed a gross error in awarding Rs.2,70,000/- only towards future loss of income. 3. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – original injured claimant that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned tribunal has committed a gross error in awarding Rs.2,70,000/- only towards future loss of income. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding future loss of income assessing the income of the original injured claimant at Rs.1500/- per month only. It is submitted that even considering the the minimum wage the learned tribunal ought to have assessed the income atleast at Rs.3000/- per month and thereafter after adding 50% towards future rise in income ought to have considered the prospective income at Rs.4500/- per month. 3.1 It is further submitted by Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier of 15 only. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that at the time of the accident the original injured claimant was aged 17 years and he has 100% permanent disability, and therefore, the learned tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 while awarding future loss of income. 3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned tribunal has materially erred in not awarding any amount towards future attendant charges, medical expenses etc.. It is submitted that considering the fact that the original injured claimant is suffering from paraplegia and he will be bed ridden for his entire life time and he will have to engage an attendant and will have to take medical treatment in future also, the learned tribunal ought to have awarded atleast Rs.1,50,000/- towards attendant charges. 3.3 It is further submitted by Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Vs. Deepak & Ors reported in (2012) 8 SCC 684 and in the case of G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Vs. Deepak & Ors reported in (2012) 8 SCC 684 and in the case of G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and Anr reported in (2013) 12 SCC 455 , it is submitted by Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. It is further submitted that considering the aforesaid decisions and the fact that the original injured claimant is suffering from paraplegia and his both legs and hands have become useless inasmuch as they have become paralytic, the learned tribunal has committed an error in awarding loss of amenities / loss of prospectus of marriage. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow / admit the present Appeal accordingly and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal to the aforesaid extent. 4. Shri Anal Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents nos.2 and 4 – Insurance Company has tried to support the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal. However, considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita (Supra); in the case of G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary (Supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551 he is not able to satisfy the Court that how the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal awarding Rs.7,86,000/- only can be said to be just compensation, more particularly, when the original claimant at the time of the accident was 17 years of age only and he is suffering from paraplegia. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal. We have re appreciated the entire evidence on record, which emerges from the record and it is not in dispute that at the time of the accident the original injured claimant was aged only 17 years. Though according to the original claimant he was doing the work of polishing the diamonds and was earning Rs.5000/- per month, the same is not established and proved. Though according to the original claimant he was doing the work of polishing the diamonds and was earning Rs.5000/- per month, the same is not established and proved. The learned tribunal has awarded the future loss of income assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month only. However, it is required to be noted that even if the minimum wage is considered, which was prevailing in the year 2005 when the accident took place, the learned tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the original claimant atleast at Rs.3000/- per month and adding 50% towards future rise in income the prospective income of the original injured claimant should be assessed at Rs.4500/- per month. As observed hereinabove, the original injured claimant at the time of the accident was aged 17 years, and therefore, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr reported in 2009 (6) SCC 621 multiplier of 18 was required to be applied and instead the learned tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 only. Under the circumstances, the original injured claimant shall be entitled to Rs.9,72,000/- towards future loss of income. 5.1 In the case of R.D. Hattangadi (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that exercise for determination of compensation in accident cases involve some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability. 5.2 In para 17 of the decision in the case of R.D. Hattangadi (Supra), it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. It is observed that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. While making the above submissions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred and considered two judgments of the Court of Appeal in Ward vs. James, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 reported in (1966) 1 QB 273 . While making the above submissions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred and considered two judgments of the Court of Appeal in Ward vs. James, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 reported in (1966) 1 QB 273 . In the aforesaid decision, in the case of R.D. Hattangadi (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed and held in para 9 and 10 as under:- “9. 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 is 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 upto 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 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. 10. In cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practicing lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.” In the case of Kavita (Supra) after considering and referring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in (2010) 10 SCC 254 ; in the case of Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prasanth S Dhananka reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1 and in the case of Ramachandrappa vs. Royal Sundraram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd reported in (2011) 13 SCC 236 in the similar set of facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs. 6,00,000/-towards attendant charges ( Rs. 2000/- per month for 25 years); Rs. 9,00,000/- towards future medical expenses (physiotherapy) (Rs. 3000/- per month for 25 years); Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 3,00,000/- under head of loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Now considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is required to be considered whether the amount awarded by the learned tribunal under the head of pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities i.e. Rs.3 lakhs in all can be said to be just compensation. 5.3 Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the fact that original injured claimant is suffering from paraplegia and his both the legs have become useless and he cannot even walk without help of others and the original injured claimant is required to employ the attendant for whole life, the claimant shall also be awarded at least Rs. 1,50,000/- towards future attendant charges. 5.4 The original injured claimant shall also be entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and loss of prospectus of marriage. 5.5 Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the evidence on record, the original claimant shall also be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical treatment and medical expenses. 5.5 Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the evidence on record, the original claimant shall also be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical treatment and medical expenses. Thus, the original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.21,38,000/- with interest as awarded by the learned tribunal under the heads as under;- Rs.9,72,000/- future loss of income Rs. 1,00,000/- attendant, special diet, transportation charges etc. Rs1,16,000/- medical bill and hospital charges (actual) Rs.1,00,000/- future medical treatment and medical expenses Rs.1,50,000/- future attendant charges Rs.3,00,000/- pain, shock and suffering Rs.4,00,000/- loss of amenities, loss of prospective of marriage. Rs.21,38,000/- 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in MACP No.292/2006 is hereby modified in part and the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.21,38,000/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of Claim Petition till realization. However, it is clarified that the original claimant shall not be entitled to any interest on Rs.2,50,000/- (i.e. Rs.1 lakh towards future medical treatment and medical expenses and Rs.1,50,000/- towards future attendant charges as the same shall be towards future expenses, which the original injured claimant shall be getting in advance). Thus, it is clarified that the original claimant shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the Claim Petition till realization on Rs.18,88,000/- only. The balance enhanced amount as per the present judgment and award to be deposited by the respondent-Company with the learned tribunal within the period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit the learned tribunal to invest 80% of the amount in the name of the original injured claimant in any fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of five years. However, the original injured claimant shall be entitled to periodical interest on the same. The balance 20% of the amount to be paid to the original injured claimant by an account payee cheque, through his guardian, on proper identification and verification by the learned tribunal itself. The present Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. It is reported that in the present Appeal the claim is for Rs.10 lakhs only and the court fees is affixed/paid on Rs.10 lakhs. The present Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. It is reported that in the present Appeal the claim is for Rs.10 lakhs only and the court fees is affixed/paid on Rs.10 lakhs. However, as observed hereinabove the original injured claimants is entitled to a total sum of Rs.21,38,000/-, and therefore, the original claimants shall be required to pay the additional court fees, and therefore, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim Vs. Raju & Ors. reported in (2011) 10 SCC 634 the original injured claimants has to be paid the enhanced amount of compensation, however subject to the payment of additional / deficit court fees on the enhanced amount of compensation which shall be paid by the original claimant within a period of two weeks from today. No order as to costs.