JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1733/2004 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,12,000/- to the original claimant (wife of the deceased) towards compensation for the death of the deceased Bachubhai Rambhai Bhaniyara, who died in a vehicular accident, original claimant has preferred the present First Appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 2. That in a vehicular accident which took place on 08.05.2004 at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning near Bhaniyara Bus Stand and when the deceased Bachubhai was going to offer service in the medical camp, due the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent No. 1, the deceased sustained serious injuries and he was initially hospitalized at Sangam Hospital for the period between 08.05.2004 to 03.06.2004. Thereafter, again he was hospitalized in one Unity Hospital for the period between 13.06.2004 to 03.08.2004 and thereafter he was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Mihir Patel after 03.08.2004 where he died on 08.08.2004. Therefore, the original claimant - widow of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition towards compensation for the death of the deceased Bachubhai, who at the time of accident was aged 72 years of age and was a Senior Ayurvedic Doctor. That the original claimant claimed Rs. 7,20,000/- towards future loss of dependency; Rs. 3,80,719/- towards medical expenses of Sangam Hospital and Unity Hospital; Rs. 4660/- towards professional fees of Dr. Mihir Patel; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering; Rs. 28,014/- towards actual loss of income and other amount under conventional heads. 2.1 To prove the income and to prove that the deceased died because of the vehicular accident, the original claimant examined herself at Exh. 19. The original claimant also heavily relied upon the documentary evidences produced at Exhs. 32, 33 and 34. 2.2 To prove the income the original claimant also examined one Sureshbhai Melabhai Chauhan at Exh. 37, who was serving as a Compounder with the deceased. The original claimant also examined the Accountant Sanjaykumar Chhotalal Babariya at Exh. 48 to prove the income of the deceased. The original claimant also examined Dr. Mihir Jagdishchandra Patel at Exh. 38. 2.2 To prove the income the original claimant also examined one Sureshbhai Melabhai Chauhan at Exh. 37, who was serving as a Compounder with the deceased. The original claimant also examined the Accountant Sanjaykumar Chhotalal Babariya at Exh. 48 to prove the income of the deceased. The original claimant also examined Dr. Mihir Jagdishchandra Patel at Exh. 38. 2.3 The claim petition was opposed by the insurer by denying the total negligence on the part of opponent No. 1. It was also specifically denied that the deceased died because of the injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident. 2.4 That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held the original opponent No. 1 sole negligent for the accident. That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 2000/- per month, however considering the age of the deceased as 72 years, the learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of dependency. That the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,35,000/- towards the expenses while the deceased was admitted in the Sangam Hospital, however learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the expenses incurred by the deceased while taking medical treatment at Unity Hospital on the ground that no medical bill has been produced with respect to the medical treatment taken by the deceased at Unity Hospital. That the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering; Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet etc. and Rs. 3000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,12,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the original claimant has preferred the present First Appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. Shri Mohsin Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month. 3.1 It is submitted that looking to the evidence on record more particularly the witnesses examined at Exhs. 3. Shri Mohsin Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month. 3.1 It is submitted that looking to the evidence on record more particularly the witnesses examined at Exhs. 19, 37 and 48 and the fact that the deceased was a Senior Ayurvedic Doctor having a long practice, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at least at Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. It is further submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant that while awarding future economic loss, learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 5 after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased himself. 3.2 It is further submitted that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 20,000/- only towards pain, shock and suffering. It is submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased and the prolonged hospitalization and that too at the age of 72 years, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. 3.3 It is further submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not awarding any amount towards medical expenses incurred by the deceased while taking treatment at Unity Hospital. It is submitted that considering the documentary evidences produced on record at Exhs. 32, 33 and 34 and the deposition of Dr. Mihir Patel, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded full amount as claimed towards medical expenses incurred by the deceased while taking treatment at Unity Hospital. Making above submissions it is requested to allow the present First Appeal and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal accordingly to the aforesaid extent. 4. Present First Appeal is opposed by Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal can be said to be just compensation and therefore, the same is not required to be interfered by this Court. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal can be said to be just compensation and therefore, the same is not required to be interfered by this Court. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer that on appreciation of evidence on record and when having found that no cogent evidence has been led to prove the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 2000/- per month and thereby has rightly awarded the loss of dependency. 4.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer that considering the number of dependents, the learned Tribunal was required to deduct 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount towards medical expenses incurred by the deceased while taking treatment at Unity Hospital as no medical papers with respect to treatment taken at Unity Hospital are brought on record. It is submitted that therefore, for what the treatment was given at Unity Hospital is not known. It is submitted that as such on 08.08.2004, the deceased died because of the pulmonary embolism and due to respiratory problem and pneumonia, which had no connection with the injuries sustained by the deceased in a vehicular accident. It is further submitted by Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the accident occurred in the year 2004, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of pain, shock and suffering i.e. Rs. 20,000/- cannot be said to on lower side. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Trilok Chandara reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 relied upon in support of her submission to deduct 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased, it is requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. I have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. I have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. At the outset it is required to be noted that present First Appeal has been preferred by the original claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 5.1 That the learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of dependency. The deceased at the time of accident was aged 72 years of age and was a Senior Ayurvedic Doctor having a long practice. To prove the income of the deceased, the original claimant has examined one Sureshbhai Melabhai Chauhan at Exh. 37; Sanjaykumar Chhotalal at Exh. 48 and Dr. Mihir Jagdishchandra Patel at Exh. 38. As per the deposition of the compounder, who has been at Exh. 37, he was getting Rs. 1000/- per month as salary. That as per the deposition of the Accountant examined at Exh. 48 and as per the Sarvaiya/balance sheet and the books of account produced at Exhs. 49, 50 and 51, the profit in the year 2003-04 was Rs. 1,04,538/-. Under the circumstances and considering the fact that the deceased was a Senior Ayurvedic Doctor having a long practice, learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 2000/- per month only. This Court is of the opinion that if in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, if the income of the deceased is assessed notionally at Rs. 50,000/- per annum, it will be in the fitness of things and can be said to be just compensation. As the deceased was aged 72 years, no future rise in income is required to be considered. Considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 more particularly paras 25 to 32, 1/3rd was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 33,334/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 5, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,66,670/-. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 more particularly paras 25 to 32, 1/3rd was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 33,334/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 5, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,66,670/-. 5.2 Looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased and that too at the age of 72 years and the prolonged hospitalization and the medical treatment, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of pain, shock and suffering can be said to be on lower side. Awarding Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering can be said to be just compensation under the said head looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased that too at the age of 72 years and prolonged hospitalization can be said to be just amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 5.3 Now, so far as the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal not awarding any amount towards medical treatment taken by the deceased at Unity Hospital is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such the claimant has produced on record the receipts with respect to the payment made to the Unity Hospital at Exh. 25 onwards. Even the prescriptions of the medical treatment taken at Unity Hospital are also produced on record. Under the circumstances and even otherwise considering the deposition of Dr. Mihir Patel, it cannot be said that the deceased had not taken any treatment at Unity Hospital. It is true that further medial papers with respect to the medical treatment taken at Unity Hospital are not on record. However, by that itself is no ground to deny any amount towards medical treatment taken at Unity Hospital. The original claimant has claimed Rs. 2,41,258/- towards medical treatment taken at Unity Hospital. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record more particularly the deposition of Dr. Mihir Patel, it emerges from the evidence that the deceased did take medical treatment at Unity Hospital, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if a lump sum Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards medical treatment at Unity Hospital, it will meet the ends of justice. The claimant shall also be entitled to a total sum of Rs. Mihir Patel, it emerges from the evidence that the deceased did take medical treatment at Unity Hospital, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if a lump sum Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards medical treatment at Unity Hospital, it will meet the ends of justice. The claimant shall also be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The First Appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The sum and substance of the aforesaid shall be that the original claimant shall be entitled to the compensation under different heads as under: Rs. 1,66,670 Towards further loss of dependency Rs. 50,000 Towards pain, shock and suffering Rs. 2,35,000 Towards medical treatment taken at Sangam and Unity Hospital Rs. 50,000 Towards conventional heads Rs. 10,000 Towards special diet Rs. 3,000 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,14,670 Total 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present First Appeal succeeds in part. Impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1733/2004 is modified to the extent it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 5,14,670/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till its realization. The balance enhanced amount be deposited by the respondent No. 2 - insurer with the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today and on deposit of balance enhanced amount, the learned Tribunal to pay the same to the original claimant by Account Payee Cheque on proper identification and verification. Present First Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.