JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. 1. The appellant has filed present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for enhancement of judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahal, at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1497 of 1996. 2. The short facts of the appellant's case are that the appellant filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1497 of 1996 for seeking compensation of Rs. 21 lacs from the opponents for the injuries sustained in a vehicular accident, which took place on 17.6.1995, at about 8:30 p.m. near sim of Village Mirzapur on Ahmedabad-Kathlal Highway. The vehicle involved in the accident was Jeep bearing No. GAM-8061. The claimant and his relatives were travelling in the said jeep and were going from Ahmedabad to Kothamba. When the said jeep was passing in the sim of village Mirzapur, at that time, one motor truck going ahead suddenly stopped on the road and hence opponent No. 1 Jeep driver lost control of Jeep due to excessive speed and the Jeep left the road and came on the side and dashed with the truck. As a result, claimant sustained serious injuries. Following such accident the appellant preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition seeking compensation. 3. The learned Tribunal considered the case of the appellant and granted compensation of Rs. 4,70,000/- by judgment and award dated 29.4.2010. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, Panchmahal at Godhra, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned counsel is appearing for appellant. Rule is served to opponent No. 1, 2.1 and 2.2. Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned counsel is appearing for Insurance Company. 5. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, improper, unjust and against the provisions of law inasmuch as the Tribunal has awarded very less compensation as against the claim made by the appellant. 6. He has contended that while passing the impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction vested in it and thereby has committed error in awarding less compensation. He has contended that conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are contrary to facts and evidence on record and without considering the relevant record of the case. 7. 6. He has contended that while passing the impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction vested in it and thereby has committed error in awarding less compensation. He has contended that conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are contrary to facts and evidence on record and without considering the relevant record of the case. 7. He has contended that Tribunal has committed grave error in accepting the income of appellant at Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. He has contended that Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding the amount of Rs. 50,000/- only under the head of pain, shock and suffering. He has contended that Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding the amount of Rs. 25,000/- only towards medical expenses, special diet, attendant and transportation charges. He has contended that Tribunal has committed grave error in considering the injuries and disability of the claimant only to 25%. He has contended that Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding the amount of Rs. 20,000/- only under the head of actual loss of income. He has contended that Tribunal has committed grave error in applying the multiplier of 14 only. He has contended that conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are not just and proper because the reasonings given by the Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs. 4,70,000/- are not just and proper. He has contended that amount of compensation is required to be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/-. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the opponent No. 3 - Insurance Company has contended that there is no convincing evidence produced on record of the case for enhancement of the compensation amount. He has contended that there is no memory loss of the claimant because during his cross-examination memory loss did not appear. He has contended that claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to agricultural land. He has contended that plaint of Tribunal shows name of claimant as 'Naginbhai Laxmidas Patel' whereas documents produced on record of Tribunal at Ex. 52 and 53 show name of claimant as 'Nagindas Lakhubhai Patel'. Lastly he has prayed not to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the papers produced before us. 52 and 53 show name of claimant as 'Nagindas Lakhubhai Patel'. Lastly he has prayed not to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the papers produced before us. We have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties. We have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. We have read the oral evidence of the complainant. 10. The Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs. 20,000/- under the head of actual loss of income. It appears that disability certificate was issued by Dr. Balkisan Desai (Neurosurgeon) which was produced on record before the Tribunal, wherein, the doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 48.7% of the body as a whole. The doctor has opined that symptoms were due to his head injury, causing depressed fracture of the right frontal bone, multiple fractures of the bony walls of right orbit and mandible, injury to the right optic nerve resulting in an irreversible damage producing permanent disability, which is assessed at 48.7% of the body as a whole, according to Kessler's & American Medical Association. In his evidence, the said doctor has stated that he had issued disability certificate to the claimant. He has stated that the claimant had come along with the treatment papers of the claimant and thereafter he had issued the disability certificate. He stated in his evidence that there was complaint of headache, loss of right eye vision, loss of memory due to the injury on head. He has stated that the claimant had sustained head injury and was initially admitted in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and thereafter was shifted to Rajasthan Hospital, Ahmedabad. His x-rays and C.T. Scan of brain were done which revealed depressed fracture of the right frontal bone, zygomatic bone and Ant. Wall of madillary sinus. His x-ray of the P.N.S. Showed multiple fractures through all the walls of the right orbit, fracture through body of the mandible on the right side. He was treated by neurosurgeon as well as faciomaxillary surgeon jointly. The claimant remained unconscious for 10 to 12 days. He was discharged on 8.7.95. Wall of madillary sinus. His x-ray of the P.N.S. Showed multiple fractures through all the walls of the right orbit, fracture through body of the mandible on the right side. He was treated by neurosurgeon as well as faciomaxillary surgeon jointly. The claimant remained unconscious for 10 to 12 days. He was discharged on 8.7.95. He had many follow-ups, as an outdoor patient and had consultation of the opthalmic surgeons, for his loss of vision in the right eye. He has no vision in the right eye. It is due to irreversible injury to the right optic nerve due to head injury causing multiple fracture involving bony walls of the right orbit. He has an inverted 'v' shaped scar over the right supra-orbital ridge, with apex of the 'v' over the forehead. After his discharge from the Rajasthan Hospital, he had palatal surgery at V.S. Hospital. Due to his palatal injury & fracture of the mandible, he is unable to eat food. Thus, the doctor has assessed the disability at 48.7% of body as a whole. 11. Another Dr. Sanket J. Suthar (MS Opthal) was examined before the Tribunal who in his testimony has stated that he had checked the claimant and given his opinion at Exh. 81. He stated further that at present patient has lost vision of one eye and hence, disability of eyes can be believed at 40%. 12. Thus, when the patient had remained in hospital for 10 to 12 days and various tests were conducted and his disability was assessed at 88.7% (48.7% + 40%), the actual loss of income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 20,000/- is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- by adding a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. 13. As regards the award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the pain, shock and suffering by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has erred in arriving at such amount considering the fact that the claimant had to undergo treatment and his disability was assessed at 88.7% (48.7% + 40%). Considering the injuries, disability and long period of treatment, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the pain, shock and suffering to the claimant. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. Considering the injuries, disability and long period of treatment, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the pain, shock and suffering to the claimant. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that actual loss of income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 20,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- by adding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and the sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain, shock and suffering is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- by adding a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Thus total amount of award of Rs. 4,70,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 5,50,000/-. 15. Rest of the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.