JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 612 of 2008 dated 28/4/2010, by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,05,900 towards compensation under different heads to the original claimant, appellant herein - Insurance Company - original opponent No. 2 has preferred the present First Appeal. 2. That by the impugned judgement and award, the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,05,900 towards compensation to the original claimant under different heads as under:-- Rs. 2,41,560 Towards future loss of income Rs. 0,15,000 Towards pain, shock and suffering Rs. 0,30,616 Towards actual loss of income Rs. 0,11,700 Towards medicine and medical treatment Rs. 0,03,000 Towards attendant charges Rs. 0,02,000 Towards transportation Rs. 0,02,000 Towards special diet Rs. 3,05,873 Total compensation, which is rounded up to 3,05,900. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal in so far as awarding Rs. 2,41,560 to the original claimant under the head of future loss of income, original opponent No. 2 - Insurance Company has preferred the present First Appeal. 3. Mr. K.K. Nair, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that in absence of any actual loss of income suffered by the original claimant, the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding future loss of income. 3.1. Mr.K.K. Nair, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company has further submitted that the original claimant at the time of accident and even thereafter also was serving as an Auditor (Grade-I) in the office of the Commissionerate of Higher Education, Gandhinagar. It is submitted that after the accident, not only the original claimant continued to be in service, however, subsequently she also got promotion and in fact even after the accident, her salary/income was increased. It is submitted that, therefore, when there was no loss of income to the original claimant even after the accident, the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding future loss of income to the original claimant. 3.2. It is submitted that, therefore, when there was no loss of income to the original claimant even after the accident, the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding future loss of income to the original claimant. 3.2. In support of his above submission, Mr.K.K. Nair, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant -Insurance Company has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 as well as decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Navalsinh Ramsinh Bariya and others, rendered in First Appeal No. 3556 of 2005. 4. Present appeal is opposed by Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant. It is submitted that it is true that even after the accident there may not be any actual loss of income to the original claimant, however, after retirement, the earning capacity of the original claimant might be reduced and/or affected and therefore, it cannot be said that the original claimant in such a situation the original claimant is not entitled to any amount towards future loss of income. 4.1. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has further submitted that as in the present case the original claimant had in fact sustained 50% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole, the learned tribunal has rightly awarded future loss of income which is awarded even considering 15% of the actual salary/income received by the original claimant. 4.2. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has further submitted that as such the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 15,000 only towards pain, shock and suffering and the learned tribunal has committed a grave error in not awarding any amount towards loss of amenities etc. though in the present case there was a disfigurement. 4.3. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Versus Hiteshbhai Kiritbhai Shukla and another, rendered in First Appeal No. 3269 of 2007. By making above submissions and relying upon the above decision, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 5. By making above submissions and relying upon the above decision, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgement the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,41,560 under the head of future loss of income, which has been seriously challenged by the Insurance Company. Even after the accident and permanent partial disability sustained by the original claimant, there is no actual loss of income to the original claimant and in fact, not only the original claimant continued to be in service and drawing the same salary, however, subsequently she got promotion. It is submitted that, therefore, when there is no actual loss of income suffered by the original claimant, the learned tribunal has committed a grave error in awarding future loss of income. 5.2. It is not in dispute that the original claimant at the time of accident was serving as an Auditor (Grade-I) in the office of the Commissionerate of Higher Education, Gandhinagar and even after the accident and permanent partial disability to the extent of 50% of the body as a whole, not only the original claimant continued to be in service but even subsequently she got promotion also and her salary/income was increased. Under the circumstances, the accident had not resulted into any actual loss of income to the original claimant. Under the circumstances, when due to the accident, there is no actual loss of income suffered by the original claimant, there is no question of awarding any amount of compensation under the head of future loss of income. 5.3. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 wherein in para 10 and 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under:-- "10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as a permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the factual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether inspite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood." 5.4. After following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Navalsinh Ramsinh Bariya (supra) has held that due to the accident and permanent disability, the claimant had not sustained any actual loss of income and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any amount of compensation under the head of future loss of income. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the original claimant not degraded in service and not only she continued on the said post but subsequently even she got promotion and even her salary has been increased, there was no justification of awarding Rs. 2,41,560/- under the head of future loss of income. Under the circumstances, the learned tribunal has committed an error in awarding future loss of income to the original claimant. 5.5. However, at the same time, the claimant shall also be entitled to just compensation under different heads. In the present case, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000 only under the head of pain, shock and suffering. It does not seem to be in dispute that the original claimant was admitted in INDUS-M Hospital and ICCU Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 3/8/2008 to 5/8/2008. Thereafter she was admitted to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar for the period from 5/8/2008 to 9/8/2009 and thereafter she was required to take treatment from Dr. Kaushal Goyal, MDS of Saloni Dental Care and also from Dr. Mukul D. Pandit, M.S. Orthopedic Surgeon of Shree Fracture & Orthopedic Hospital. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained injury of fracture of Right Nasal Bone Anterior Wall, lower end of radius. In the accident the claimant also sustained fracture of nasal bone and fracture on anterior wall of right maxillary. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, awarding Rs. 15,000 under the head of pain, shock and suffering can be said to be on lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the original claimant shall be entitled to at least Rs. 40,000 under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 5.6. The original claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 30,000 under the head of loss of amenities. 5.7. Thus, even after deducting Rs. 2,41,560 awarded by the learned tribunal under the head of future loss of income, the original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 1,21,313, which is rounded up to Rs. 1,21,350, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 5.8. Present appeal is, therefore, required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 5.9. 1,21,350, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 5.8. Present appeal is, therefore, required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 5.9. So far as the reliance placed upon the unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hiteshbhai Kiritbhai Shukla & another (supra) relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant is concerned, on facts, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, more particularly in lights of the facts on hand, as discussed hereinabove. 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 (Main), Gandhinagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 612 of 2008 dated 28/4/2010, is hereby modified to the above extent and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 1,21,350/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. It goes without saying that on modifying the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal, whatever amount the appellant - Insurance Company has deposited in excess of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,21,350/-, the appellant - Insurance Company shall be entitled to get back the same either from the fixed deposit lying with the learned tribunal and/or from the original claimant with proportionate interest. 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.