JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) and FTC No. 13, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 211 of 1997 dated 29/3/2007, by which the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,71,000/- to the original claimant (injured claimant) towards compensation for the injuries and permanent partial disability sustained by him, appellant herein - original claimant has preferred the present appeal on the aspect of contributory negligence as well as on quantum of amount of compensation. 2. That in a vehicular accident which occurred on 10/12/1996 between the Motorcycle No. GJ-17-E-5384, which at the relevant time, was being driven by the original claimant himself and Tractor No. GJ-6-A-9986, original claimant sustained serious injuries and in fact his one eye was totally damaged and was required to be removed; there was disfigurement also and even on the nose, operation was required to be performed and plastic surgery was also required to be done. Therefore, the original claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 15 Lacs towards compensation. 2.01. It was the case on behalf of the original claimant that the driver of the Tractor involved in the accident - original opponent No. 1 himself was sole negligent for the accident. 2.02. That the claim petition was opposed by the insurer and it was specifically denied that the driver of the Tractor involved in the accident was sole negligent for the accident. The Insurance Company pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the original claimant also. To prove the negligence, the original claimant himself came to be examined at Ex. 31. The original claimant also relied upon the documentary evidence produced at Ex. Nos. 28 and 29 i.e. First Information Report and Panchnama of the place of accident. 2.03. On behalf of the Insurance Company original opponent No. 1 - driver of the Tractor also came to be examined. 2.04. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has held the original claimant - driver of the Motorcycle contributory negligent to the extent of 20% and driver of the Tractor involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 80%. 2.05. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 2.04. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has held the original claimant - driver of the Motorcycle contributory negligent to the extent of 20% and driver of the Tractor involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 80%. 2.05. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,71,2000 towards future loss of income considering the permanent partial disability of the body as a whole at 45% and considering the income of the claimant at Rs. 6200 per month and applying multiplier of 17. That the learned tribunal has assessed compensation under the different heads as under: Rs.5,71,200=00 Towards future loss of income Rs.0,14,800=00 Towards actual loss of income Rs.1,50,000=00 Towards pain, shock & suffering Rs.1,20,000=00 Towards medical expenses Rs.0,07,000=00 Towards special diet Rs.0,80,000=00 Towards attendant & transportation charges Rs.8,71,000=00 Total compensation 2.06. That deducting 20% towards contributory negligence of the original claimant himself, the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,96,800 with interest at the rate at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 2.07. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal, original claimant has preferred the present appeal on the aspect of contributory negligence as well as amount of quantum of amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. 3. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding future loss of income considering the income of the claimant at Rs. 6200 per month. He has further submitted that in the present case, though after the accidental injuries and permanent partial disability sustained by the original claimant, the original claimant continued to be in service where he was earlier serving, however, subsequently he applied in another Company and was in fact selected, however, his case was rejected on medical ground. It is submitted that, therefore, had the accident not been occurred, the original claimant would have got job in another company and would have got much more salary than he was getting while serving in the company where he continued to be in service. It is submitted that while awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has not properly appreciated and/or considered the aforesaid aspect. 3.01. Mr. It is submitted that while awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has not properly appreciated and/or considered the aforesaid aspect. 3.01. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has further submitted that even the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 1,50,000 only towards pain, shock and suffering. It is submitted that looking to the multiple serious injuries sustained by the original claimant and considering the fact that his left eye was totally damaged which was required to be removed and three artificial eyes were required to be inserted and even there was fracture on the nose and even a plastic surgery was also required to be done/operated on the fact and there was disfigurement on the face and considering the prolonged hospitalization and medical treatment, the learned tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 2 Lacs towards pain, shock and suffering. 3.02. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in not awarding any amount towards loss of amenities and/or loss of comfort. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the facts that the original claimant had sustained multiple serious injuries and his left eye was required to be removed and artificial eyes were required to be inserted and there was disfigurement, the learned tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 1 Lac towards loss of amenities and comfort in the life. 3.03. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has further submitted that even the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding any amount towards medical treatment. It is submitted that even subsequently also, the original claimant was required to take medical treatment which, in fact, he had subsequently taken, the learned tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 50,000 towards future medical treatment. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal to the aforesaid extent and modify the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal to the aforesaid extent. 4. Mr. Vasant Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer has initially tried to oppose the present appeal. 50,000 towards future medical treatment. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal to the aforesaid extent and modify the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal to the aforesaid extent. 4. Mr. Vasant Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer has initially tried to oppose the present appeal. He has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned tribunal holding the original claimant contributory negligent to the extent of 20% is not required to be interfered with by this Court. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned tribunal of contributory negligence is on appreciation of evidence. 4.01. Mr. Vasant Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has further submitted that as such, the original claimant has failed to prove that as such the Tractor was on the wrong side. It is submitted that on the contrary, from the cross-examination of the of the claimant himself, it emerges that the Tractor driver was on his right side and in fact, the Motorcycle which was coming from the opposite side, dashed on the right side of the tractor. It is submitted that, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned tribunal on contributory negligence is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 4.02. Now, so far as the quantum of amount of compensation is concerned, Mr. Vasant Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has requested to pass appropriate order and to award just compensation. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. I have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 5.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence, more particularly, even considering the deposition of the claimant himself and documentary evidence on record, such as First Information Report and Panchnama of the place of accident, the learned has held the original claimant contributory negligent to the extent of 20% and original opponent No. 1 - driver of the Tractor contributory negligent to the extent of 80%. Considering the evidence on record and even on appreciation of the same, this Court is of the opinion that, as such, no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in holding the original claimant contributory negligent to the extent of 20%. Considering the evidence on record and even on appreciation of the same, this Court is of the opinion that, as such, no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in holding the original claimant contributory negligent to the extent of 20%. Even in the cross-examination, the original claimant himself has specifically admitted that when he seen the tractor coming from the opposite side, which was 15 to 20 ft. away, the tractor was on its right side. He has also specifically admitted in his cross-examination that the Motorcycle dashed on right side of the Tractor. If that be so, the contention on behalf of the original claimant that the original opponent No. 1 - tractor driver came on the wrong side cannot be accepted. If the motorcycle was coming from the opposite side and dashed on the right side of the tractor, which was also coming from the opposite side, it cannot be said that the Tractor driver was on the wrong side. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the learned tribunal in holding the original claimant - driver of the motorcycle contributory negligent to the extent of 20% is not required to be interfered with and the same is hereby confirmed. 5.02. Now, so far as the quantum of amount of compensation is concerned, it is required to be noted that as per the medical evidence, the permanent partial disability sustained by the original claimant was to the extent of 40% +5% i.e. 45%. It is required to be noted that at the time of accident, the original claimant was getting Rs. 3700 per month and at the time of recording of his deposition, he was getting Rs. 6200 per month and, as such, after the accident, the original claimant continued to be in service and continued to get salary. However, looking to the permanent partial disability sustained by the original claimant, his earning capacity can be said to have been reduced for future and when the learned tribunal has awarded future loss of income, considering his income at Rs. 6200 per month and considering the permanent partial disability at 45%, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. However, it is required to be noted that while awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has applied multiplier of 17. 6200 per month and considering the permanent partial disability at 45%, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. However, it is required to be noted that while awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has applied multiplier of 17. However, as the original claimant was aged 25 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 S.C. 3104 , multiplier of 18 was required to be applied. If that be so, the original claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 6,04,800 towards future loss of income. The learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,50,000 towards pain, shock and suffering. However, considering the multiple serious injuries sustained by the original claimant and considering the fact that his left eye was required to be removed and three artificial eyes were inserted and that the original claimant also sustained fracture of nose and also on the face and even plastic surgery was required to be performed and even there was disfigurement on the face, and considering the prolonged hospitalization and medical treatment, we are of the opinion that if Rs. 2 Lacs is awarded towards pain, shock and suffering, it can be said to be "just compensation" under the said head. 5.03. Even the learned tribunal has materially erred in not awarding any amount towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort. Considering the fact that there is disfigurement on face and even left eye was required to be removed and artificial eyes were required to be inserted, the original claimant shall be entitled to at least Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of amenities and comfort in life. 5.04. From the evidence on record of the original claimant, it appears that the original claimant was required to take medical treatment in future periodically and his artificial eyes were required to be replaced. Even looking to the injuries and permanent partial disability sustained by the original claimant, there is a requirement of future medical treatment. Under the circumstances, the original claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 50,000 towards future medical expenses. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified. 6. Even looking to the injuries and permanent partial disability sustained by the original claimant, there is a requirement of future medical treatment. Under the circumstances, the original claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 50,000 towards future medical expenses. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) and FTC No. 13, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 211 of 1997 dated 29/3/2007 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,83,680/- (out of total compensation of Rs. 11,04,600 after deducting Rs. 2,20,920 towards 20% negligence of the original claimant) towards compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The enhanced amount of compensation as per this order shall be deposited by the respondent No. 3 - The New India Assurance Company with the learned tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit, the same be paid to the original claimant/claimants proportionately, by Account Payee Cheque on proper verification and identification. Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.