JUDGMENT : Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. 1. This appeal pertains to the year 2011. 2. In the claim petition, claimant-Respondent No. 1, namely Madan Lal age 47 years, who was working as a permanent labourer in 15 Field Ammunition Depot, Jandrah, was traveling in a matador bearing Registration No. 1327/JK 14 on 81.03.2008 from Jandrah to Udhampur after attending his duties. The Vehicle turned turtle and in that accident, he suffered serious spine injury. 3. He was immediately taken to District Hospital at Udhampur and treated and from there he was shifted to Command hospital at Udhampur for treatment. The extent of injury was extensive and consequently he; was unable to perform his duties. Claimant, therefore, took voluntarily retirement from service due to the disability suffered by him. 4. He claimed Rs. 27,50,000/- (Twenty seven lacs fifty thousand only) as compensation from the Insurance Company. Claimant-Respondent No. 1 was examined along with three other witnesses. Doctor was also examined to speak about the disability and incapacity of the Claimant-Respondent No 1 to do his routine chores. In so far as the income of the claimant is concerned it was established from the testimony of PW-Bansi Lal, an Assistant in Field Ammunition Depot that the claimant-Respondent No. 1 was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 32,211/-. 5. No witness was examined on behalf of appellant-Insurance Company. The appellant did not lead any evidence in rebuttal on all issues. Objections were, however, filed by the insurance company. The matter was decided by the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 05.03.2011. 6. Learned Tribunal held that the age of injured claimant is 47 years. As far as the nature of disability suffered by the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of doctor PW-Dr. K.K. Kudiyar who dealt at length on the disability suffered by the claimant-respondents and stated that it is 100%. The evidence of the doctor is not controverted by the appellant-Insurance Company. 7. The Tribunal based on the above evidence came to a conclusion that due to the disability suffered by the claimant-Respondents No. 1 which is 100% and also on the evidence of the doctor proceeded to decide the quantum of compensation by adopting multiplier method. 8. In so far as the income of the injured claimant-Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the evidence of employer Bansi Lal is that there is possibility of higher future income to the claimant. 8. In so far as the income of the injured claimant-Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the evidence of employer Bansi Lal is that there is possibility of higher future income to the claimant. On that basis learned Tribunal fixed the income, of claimant-Respondent No. 1 as Rs. 15,000/- per month. It, however, deducted a portion stating that petitioner is receiving pensionary benefits. 9. The claimant in his cross appeal prays for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Claimant pleads that the award is inadequate and it is on lower side. The learned Tribunal failed to apply the proper income in respect of the claimant-Respondent No. 1. Claimant is also entitled to higher medical expenses than what is granted by the Learned Tribunal stating that further medical treatment is taken and it continues. 10. Learned Tribunal after considering the serious nature of the injury and taking note of the fact that the claimant-Respondent No. 1 has taken voluntarily retirement due to injury sustained by him as he was unable to continue in service, adopted multiplier of 10. Claimant-Respondent No. 1 admitted that he is drawing monthly pension of Rs. 5,000/-. On the basis of multiplier of 10, the future pecuniary loss was determined as Rs. 10,000 X 12 X 10 i.e. Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lacs only). Total compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal in favour of the claimant/Respondents No. 1 is as follows: 1. Pain and sufferings: Rs. 2,00,000/- 2. Medical Expenses: Rs. 50,000/- 3. Future Medical Expenses: Rs. 50,000/- 4. Future Economic Loss (Pecuniary Loss): Rs. 12,00,000/- 5. Disability including the loss of amenities and loss of expectations of life : Rs. 2,00,000/- 6. Attendant: Rs. 1,00,00/- 7. Extra diet: Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 18,20,000/- 11. The interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded also on the sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was awarded under the head of Medical expenses from the date of institution of the petition till realization. 12. The Insurance Company raised an issue stating that the income fixed is on the higher side and consequently the compensation. It is further pleaded that the award in so far as the pain and suffering, medical expenses, future medical expenses and future economic loss is concerned, is also on the higher side and should be reduced. 13. 12. The Insurance Company raised an issue stating that the income fixed is on the higher side and consequently the compensation. It is further pleaded that the award in so far as the pain and suffering, medical expenses, future medical expenses and future economic loss is concerned, is also on the higher side and should be reduced. 13. Per contra in the Cross Appeal No. 51/2011, claimant-Respondent No. 1 prayed for enhancement of the income to Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) for the purpose of determining the compensation because pensionary benefits cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the income. The deduction made therein is wrong. Claimants counsel pleaded for just compensation because some amounts are meager and compensation in respect of some of the heads have not been granted. 14. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents placed reliance upon judgment of Honble Supreme Court judgment in case titled Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Ors. (Appellants) v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Anr. (Respondents) reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3191 (1), Paragraphs 33 and 36 whereof is read as under: "33. So far the general principle of estimating damages under common law is concerned, it is settled that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of the future pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to him but for the death with the pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death. In other words, it is balancing of loss and gain of the claimant occasioned by the death. But this has to change its colour to the extent a statute intends to do. Thus, this has to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is very clear, to which there could be no doubt that this Act delivers compensation to the claimant only on account of accidental injury or death, not on account of any other death. Thus, the pecuniary advantage accruing under this Act has to be deciphered, eo-relating with the accidental death. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is on account of the pecuniary loss to the claimant by accidental injury or death and not other forms of death. Thus, the pecuniary advantage accruing under this Act has to be deciphered, eo-relating with the accidental death. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is on account of the pecuniary loss to the claimant by accidental injury or death and not other forms of death. If there is natural death or death by suicide, serious illness, including even death by accident, through train, air flight not involving motor vehicle, would not be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the application of general principle under the common law o floss and gain for the computation of compensation under this Act must co-relate to this type of injury or deaths, viz., accidental. If the words pecuniary advantage from whatever source are to be interpreted to mean any form of death under this Act it would dilute all possible benefits conferred on the claimant and would be contrary to the spirit of the law. If the pecuniary advantage resulting from death means pecuniary advantage coming under all forms of death then it will include all the assets movable, immovable shares, bank accounts, cash and every amount receivable under any contract. 36. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between tire two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till maturity after paying." (Emphasis supplied). 15. In view of the above decision, in so far as the income is concerned, deduction of Rs. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till maturity after paying." (Emphasis supplied). 15. In view of the above decision, in so far as the income is concerned, deduction of Rs. 5,000/- applicable to pension from income is erroneous. Hence, the income of Rs. 15,000/- claimed supported by evidence will be appropriate. Learned counsel for the claimant-Respondents No. 1 also placed reliance on case titled Vimal Kumar and Ors. v. Kishore Dan and Ors. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3258, in support of this plea. Hence the plea of the claimant is accepted. 16. In terms of the award of the learned Tribunal, the injured claimant was 47 years of age at the time of accident and the same is not disputed by the appellant-Insurance Company. The fact that the claimant is suffering 100% disability is based on the evidence of the doctor and it is not seriously disputed as the medical board had testified that the claimant is not in a position to move by himself or to do any work and he requires the help of an attendant throughout his life. There is no likelihood of the disability decreasing with the passage of time. There is no material on record contrary to the above finding and to discard the evidence that the injured claimant is totally disabled. Injured claimant was hospitalized for a long time and necessarily he will need an attendant to taken care of him. The Tribunal did not grant the same. 17. The other issue raised in the appeal is that the medical expenses hill submitted is only to the extent of Rs. 15,500/- whereas Tribunal has erroneously granted Rs. 50,000/-. This is verified by the counsel for claimant and accepted as tenable plea. Therefore, in so far as medical expenses is concerned, it stands reduced to Rs. 15,500/- (rupees fifteen thousand five hundred only). 18. In so far as plea that in respect of pain and suffering, the compensation is excessive is justified. This has to be considered in the light of the nature of injury, period of hospitalization etc. The Tribunal without any discussion awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs only) for pain and suffering. Appellant counsel pointed out that the claimant in the claim petition sought for Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) for pain and suffering in Paragraph 20(A) of the claim petition. The Tribunal without any discussion awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs only) for pain and suffering. Appellant counsel pointed out that the claimant in the claim petition sought for Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) for pain and suffering in Paragraph 20(A) of the claim petition. Hence the appellant pleads for reduction. 19. Having considered the above plea, the serious nature of the injury, period of hospitalization, medical expenses, future medical expenses and loss of pecuniary benefits, the compensation requires to be modified for granting just compensation. I am inclined to modify the compensation on various heads as follows. 20. Considering the age, nature of injury as discussed above, the period of hospitalization, disability etc. in so far as pain and sufferings is concerned as against Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) awarded, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) is granted to the claimant/Respondent No. 1 substantial amount is granted in other heads. 21. In so far as future medical expenses is concerned, same is confirmed. 22. As regards, disability including the loss of amenities and loss of expectations of life, Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs only) is granted by the Tribunal. In view of the decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. reported in 2011 ACJ 1 , the same is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand). Paragraph 10 of aforementioned judgment is reproduced as under: 10. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100 percent (or even any thing more than 50 per cent), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may. 23. The compensation under the head of attendant charges is excessive considering the period of hospitalization. Hence it is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only). 24. The compensation towards extra diet is confirmed as it is commensurate with the injury, age of the claimant and the disability suffered. 25. The only other issue which requires consideration is what should be the pecuniary loss of income consequent to the injury. Hence it is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only). 24. The compensation towards extra diet is confirmed as it is commensurate with the injury, age of the claimant and the disability suffered. 25. The only other issue which requires consideration is what should be the pecuniary loss of income consequent to the injury. The learned Tribunal at the threshold made an error by deducting Rs. 5,000/- on account of pensionary benefits. This cannot be deducted from the income in view of the decision in Rebellos case. Therefore, Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) fixed as income is justified. The appellant counsel has no serious dispute as regards multiplier adopted. Therefore, same multiplier of 10 is adopted for determining the economic loss. The compensation payable to the claimant-Respondent No. 1, will, therefore, be Rs. 15,000 X 12 X 10 = Rs. 18,00,000/- (rupees eighteen lacs only). 26. In the result, the award of the learned Tribunal is modified as under: S. No. Nature/Head of compensation By Tribunal Modified by this Court 1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 15,500/- 3. Future Medical Expenses Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 4. Future Economic Loss Rs. 12,00,000/- Rs. 18,00,000/- 5. Disability including the loss of amenities and loss expectation of life Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 6. Attendant Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 7. Extra Diet Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 18,20,000/- Rs. 20,85,500/- 27. In so far as interest is concerned, there will be no interest on future medical expenses. In so far as interest on the other amounts such as pain and suffering, medical expenses, economic loss, Loss of amenities and expectation, attendant and extra diet is concerned, the interest @ 7.5% will be from the date of institution of the claim petition till realization. 28. In the result, the award of the learned Tribunal is modified as above. The appeal and cross appeal are partly allowed and the award amount, if deposited in this Court to be paid to the claimant-Respondents No. 1.