JUDGMENT: K.J. Thaker, J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellant-original claimant, challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Dated: 19.07.2008, rendered in MACP No. 766 of 2004, whereby, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 7,82,200/- along with 7.5 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 06.05.2004, while the original claimant was proceeding on the scooter owned by Respondent No. 4, herein, from Gambhoi to Surajpura, at that point of time, Respondent No. 1, herein, who was driving an accent car in rash and negligent manner, dashed the appellant-original claimant from behind. On account of that the appellant-claimant sustained grave injuries and the lower portion of his body become paraplegic. Hence, the appellant-original claimant preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned award, and hence, the present appeal. 3. Mr. Mansuri, learned Advocate for the appellant-original claimant, submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in passing the impugned judgment and award, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the rise in income of the claimant. He submitted that in view of the fact that as the appellant-claimant was running a garage, on account of 95% disability sustained by him due to paraplegia, he was unable to carry out his vocation, and hence, the Tribunal ought to have treated 100 per cent loss of income. He, further, submitted that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of attendant charges, special diet and conveyance etc. are also on lower side and same requires to be enhanced. He, therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shelat and Mr. Mazmudar, learned Advocates for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5, herein, i.e. the insurance companies of the offending car and the scooter respectively, submitted that the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration, the entire material on record, and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. 5. Shelat and Mr. Mazmudar, learned Advocates for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5, herein, i.e. the insurance companies of the offending car and the scooter respectively, submitted that the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration, the entire material on record, and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. 5. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. So far as the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding Respondent No. 1-driver of the Accent car solely responsible for the accident is concerned, it is pertinent to note that neither Respondent No. 1-Driver of the car, Respondent No. 2-owner of the car nor Respondent No. 3-Insurance company of the offending car have challenged the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal by filing any appeal, and hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal to that extent requires to be confirmed. 7. So far as the aspect of award of compensation is concerned, the case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that he was running a garage, in the name and style Jay Ambe Garage, at Gmbhoi, where he used to do the work of repairing of tractor, scooter, jeep etc., prior to the accident and he used to earn about Rs. 5,000/- per month. In order to prove his income, the appellant-victim produced a certificate, i.e. Exhibit-53, from the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and he also examined one Rajubhai Nathubhai Patel vide Exhibit-60, who used to get his vehicles repaired at the garage of the appellant-victim, to prove the aspect that he was running a garage. To prove the aspect of disability, the appellant-victim examined one Dr. Rangam Chandulal Shah vide Exhibit-58. As per the evidence of Dr. Shah, the appellant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 95 per cent of the body as a whole, and thereby, by assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- and that of loss of future income of 95 per cent on account of 95 per cent disability sustained by him, i.e. Rs. 2850/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,47,200/- towards loss of future income to the appellant-victim. 8. 3000/- and that of loss of future income of 95 per cent on account of 95 per cent disability sustained by him, i.e. Rs. 2850/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,47,200/- towards loss of future income to the appellant-victim. 8. However, while assessing the disability of the appellant-victim, the Tribunal seems to have overlooked the fact that the appellant-victim had to do his routine chores, while remaining in bed and that he is not able to do anything on his own. It is, perhaps, because of this reason that the appellant-victim could not remain present before the Tribunal and his evidence had to be recorded through the Court Commissioner. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the nature of work, which was being carried out by the appellant-victim prior to the fateful accident, it cannot be said that there is only 95 per cent loss of income. But, in view of the fact that the appellant-victim used to run a garage and used to repair the vehicles prior to the accident, which would involve sheer physical strength and capacity, and as post accident, he is suffering from paraplegia to the extent of 95 per cent, it cannot be said that there is only 95 per cent loss of income, but, the Tribunal ought to have treated the same to be 100 per cent loss of future income. Further, from the material on record, it can be easily culled out that appellant-victim, himself, used to do all the repairings and there is nothing to suggest that he had employed any other person to help him in his work, and therefore, after the alleged accident, it cannot be said that his business is still running. The Tribunal, therefore, could not have assessed the loss of income to the appellant-victim at 95 per cent, but, it should have been 100 per cent. Hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal to that extent cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside by taking the loss of future income to the appellant-victim at 100 per cent. 9. Now, so far as the appellant-victim's monthly income is concerned, according to him he was earning about Rs. 5,000/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Here, we have to keep in mind the nature of vocation that was being carried out by the appellant-victim prior to the fateful accident. 9. Now, so far as the appellant-victim's monthly income is concerned, according to him he was earning about Rs. 5,000/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Here, we have to keep in mind the nature of vocation that was being carried out by the appellant-victim prior to the fateful accident. In the case on hand, it has come on record that the appellant, herein, used to run a gage on the main road, i.e. National Highway No. 8, passing from nearby the village Kesharpura (Gambhoi). By way of evidence of Rajubhai Nathhubhai Patel vide Exhibit-60, it has also come on record that the appellant-victim used to repair not only two wheelers, but, he also used to repair four wheelers like tractor, jeep etc. Further, in view of the fact that the garage of the appellant-victim was situated on the main road, he must have been doing good and that his business must have been improved in future, as it was situated on the highway. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- and instead it ought to have assessed the income of the appellant-victim at-least at Rs. 4,000/- per month in view of the nature of vocation and the place, where it was situated. 10. As far as the multiplier of 16 applied by the Tribunal is concerned, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant-victim was, at the relevant point of time, aged about 30 years, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in "SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR.", 2009 6 SCC 121 , the correct multiplier would be 17 and not 16 as is applied by the Tribunal. 11. Thus, taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month, his annual loss of income would come to Rs. 48,000/-, whereas, his future loss of income would come to Rs. (48,000 X 17) = 8,16,000/-. 12. Now, if, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads are seen, then, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and it has awarded no amount whatsoever under the head of loss of enjoyment of life. 12. Now, if, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads are seen, then, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and it has awarded no amount whatsoever under the head of loss of enjoyment of life. In the case on hand, as stated above, the appellant-victims' lower body portion has become paraplegic due to the alleged accident and he is unable to do anything on his own. Further, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant-victim, it becomes clear that the appellant-victim must have had to remain hospitalized for quite a long time and that even after getting discharge he had to also go through prolonged follow-up treatment, which is apparent from the actual medical bills of Rs. 1,37,462/- produced by the appellant-victim before the Tribunal. Further, taking into consideration the physical condition of the appellant-victim that even as on today he is unable to do anything on his own, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the aforesaid heads appears to be on lower side. Thus, the ends of justice would be met, if, the appellant victim is awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering in stead of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 75,000/- towards attendant charges in stead of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet in stead of Rs. 10,000/- and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of enjoyment of life. 13. Under the circumstances, the total amount of compensation to be payable to the appellant-victim would be as under; (1) Rs. 8,16,000/-, loss of future income; (2) Rs. 1,00,000/-, pain, shock and sufferings; (3) Rs. 50,000/-, loss of enjoyment of life; (4) Rs. 75,000/-, attendant charges; (5) Rs. 20,000/-, special diet; (6) Rs. 1,50,000/- medical expenses. Rs. 12,11,000/- 14. Here, it may be noted that the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs. 7,82,000/- towards compensation to the appellant victim, and therefore, he shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. (12,11,000 - 7,82,200) = 4,28,800/-. 15. 75,000/-, attendant charges; (5) Rs. 20,000/-, special diet; (6) Rs. 1,50,000/- medical expenses. Rs. 12,11,000/- 14. Here, it may be noted that the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs. 7,82,000/- towards compensation to the appellant victim, and therefore, he shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. (12,11,000 - 7,82,200) = 4,28,800/-. 15. Insofar as the rate of interest on the additional amount of interest is concerned, taking into consideration the current repo rate, if, the appellant-victim is granted interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization, it would be just and proper. 16. In the result, present appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The appellant-victim shall be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 4,28,800/-, over and above the amount of Rs. 7,82,200/- already awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization from all the respondents jointly or severally. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 19.07.2008 stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. R & P, if any received, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.