JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Amit N. Patel for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. K.K. Nair for the respondent No. 3, learned advocate Mr. Swapnil H. Chauhan for respondent No. 5 and learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat for respondent No. 6. 2. The appellant herein is original claimant whereas respondents are original opponents being drivers, owners and insurers of both the vehicles, which were involved in the accident. The appellant - claimant has been awarded the amount of Rs. 84,000/- with 7.5 % interest from the date of the claim petition till realisation and proportionate cost by judgment and award dated 20.4.2010 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) of Ahmedabad City in M.A.C.P. No. 587 of 2003. Though the Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the claimant, the claimant has to prefer this First Appeal because of one another order dated 16.6.2010 in a Review Application filed in such disposed of claim petition at Exh. 73. By such application, the Tribunal has exonerated the liability of opponent No. 3 i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. However, while doing so, instead of fixing the liability of all the tort-feasors jointly and severally, the Tribunal has categorically ordered that opponents No. 1 and 2 on one hand and opponents No. 4 to 6 on other hand have to pay the compensation to the claimant in the ratio of 50% each though total amount of compensation remains unaltered i.e. Rs. 84,000/-. While allowing such review application at Exh. 73, the Tribunal has recorded that at the time of argument of the main petition, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that vehicle No. GJ-18T-3261 was not insured with opponent No. 3 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Hence, the Tribunal should not have passed the award against opponent No. 3, but inadvertently in final award, the liability of opponent No. 3 was not exonerated. To that extent, Tribunal has committed error in passing award against all the opponents, including opponent No. 3. Therefore, the review application was allowed as aforesaid. If we peruse the operative portion of the final judgment and award, it becomes clear that therein also, the Tribunal has instead of fixing the liability of all the tort-feasors jointly and severally, bifurcated the liability between opponents No. 1 and 3 and 4 to 6 equally i.e. 50% each. 3. Therefore, the review application was allowed as aforesaid. If we peruse the operative portion of the final judgment and award, it becomes clear that therein also, the Tribunal has instead of fixing the liability of all the tort-feasors jointly and severally, bifurcated the liability between opponents No. 1 and 3 and 4 to 6 equally i.e. 50% each. 3. To that extent, if we peruse the nature of accident as recorded by the Tribunal, it becomes clear that on 27.2.2003, when claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on one motorcycle No. GJ-1CM-7868 driven by opponent No. 4, owned by opponent No. 5 and insured by opponent No. 6, and when it was going towards Geeta Mandir from Jamalpur Circle, near AMTS Workshop, a loading rickshaw No. GJ-18T-3261 came from opposite direction and collided with the motorcycle. Thereby, claimant has suffered serious injuries in such vehicular accident. Therefore, one thing is clear and certain that claimant is not the tort-feasor and therefore, this is a case of composite negligence between two tort-feasors wherein victim has not contributed anything. In view of such factual and undisputed fact, as a third party, the claimant is entitled to recover full set of amount from either of the tort-feasor and all the tort-feasors are equally liable to pay full set of compensation to such victim. In view of such fact, if claimant succeeds in recovering full set of compensation from any one of the tort-feasor, then, such tort-feasor may in turn claim and recover the amount of compensation, which he was bound to pay for the other joint tort-feasor, from other tort-feasors but all the tort-feasors are liable to compensate the claimant jointly and severally. To that extent, the Tribunal has committed an error by not making award against all the opponents jointly and severally and therefore, the same needs to be modified to that extent. This is now settled legal position, which does not require support of any decision or other discussion and therefore, I hold that all the respondents except respondent No. 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. This is now settled legal position, which does not require support of any decision or other discussion and therefore, I hold that all the respondents except respondent No. 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. So far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, when based upon the evidence adduced before the Court the Tribunal has came to the conclusion that there is no proper evidence to confirm that vehicle in question i.e. rickshaw No. GJ-18T-3261 was insured with opponent No. 3 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; at this stage, in absence of any evidence and pleading to fix the liability of respondent No. 3 also, there is no reason to interfere with any such decision and order by the Tribunal that opponent No. 3 is exonerated from indemnifying the owner for want of proper insurance policy in his favour. 4. While challenging the award on such legal ground, the petitioner is also claiming additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- contending that the Tribunal has erred in awarding just and reasonable compensation. For the purpose, I have verified the record and proceeding. The scrutiny of record discloses following basic information for considering the quantum of compensation that may be awarded to the claimant. 5. Thereby, the fact remains that Tribunal has not considered the prospective income of young man of 24 years only and though for simple fracture Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded before three decades, for pain, shock and suffering Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 12,000/- on such head. So far as other awards are concerned, if we increase the earning capacity suitably, except for nutritious food and medicines and treatment on all other remaining heads, there is scope of increasing the amount of compensation suitably. Therefore, considering the prospective earning capacity of the appellant, when appellant has claimed that he is earning Rs. 2,500/- at present, at least the same amount can be taken as future earning capacity without any hesitation, more particularly, in absence of any evidence in rebuttal and considering the inflation and devaluation of rupee so also consumer price index. Similarly, though there is an admission regarding disability as 9%, considering the fracture and medical evidence, it would be appropriate to consider 10% as disability and therefore, the appellant would be entitled to Rs. Similarly, though there is an admission regarding disability as 9%, considering the fracture and medical evidence, it would be appropriate to consider 10% as disability and therefore, the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 250/- towards monthly loss of earning capacity multiplied by 12 and multiplied by 15 as suitable multiplier, which would come to Rs. 45,000/-. Similarly, when we are taking Rs. 2,500/- as monthly earning capacity, considering the nature of injuries and treatment, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be just and proper towards actual loss of income. Similarly, for same set of evidence, the compensation towards pain, shock and suffering should be Rs. 20,000/-. 6. It cannot be ignored that for pain, shock and suffering, award of Rs. 15,000/- has been suggested as back as in the year 1978 in the judgment rendered in the case of Babu Mansa v/s. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 1978 GLR 492 and thereafter, the same has been consistently approved and followed and ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded more than Rs. 50,000/- and even Rs. 2 lac towards pain, shock and suffering for 50% disability in Sanjay v. Batham reported in AIR 2012 SC 459 . 7. For arriving at such conclusion, I am relying upon following decisions:- i] Bharat Premjibhai v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 1978 GLR 585 ii] Amul Rameshchandra Gandhi v. Abbasbhai Kasambhai Diwani reported in 1978 GLR 721 iii] State of Gujarat v. Dushyantbhai Nagjibhai Patel reported in 1982 [2] GLR 95 iv] Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn v. Niranjanbhai Ambalal Patel reported in 1982 [2] GLR 180 v] New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vallabhbhai Bhikhabhai [Decd.] through his heirs Josnaben Vallabhbhai reported in 2008 [4] GLR 2876 vi] Smt. Kamla Devi v. Government of NCT of Delhi reported in 2005 ACJ 216 vii] Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh reported in [2003] 2 SCC 274. viii] Puttamma v. KL Narayana Reddy reported in AIR 2014 SC 706 8. In view of above discussion, the just and reasonable compensation would be as under:- Rs. 10,000/- towards actual loss of income, Rs. 20,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering Rs. 7,000/- towards nutritious food, transportation, attendant charges Rs. 45,000/- for future loss of income Rs. 26,600/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,08,000/- as total compensation with 7.5% interest with proportionate cost. 9. In view of above, the First Appeal is partly allowed. 10,000/- towards actual loss of income, Rs. 20,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering Rs. 7,000/- towards nutritious food, transportation, attendant charges Rs. 45,000/- for future loss of income Rs. 26,600/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,08,000/- as total compensation with 7.5% interest with proportionate cost. 9. In view of above, the First Appeal is partly allowed. The award is to be modified in above terms, whereby the appellant is now entitled to Rs. 25,600/- as additional amount of compensation with 7.5% interest with proportionate cost throughout. The claimant is also entitled to recover full set of compensation jointly and severally from all the opponents.