JUDGMENT : Z.K. SAIYED, J. The First Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act praying for modifying the judgment and order dated 17.2.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No. III, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 78 of 1994 and prayed for awarding multiplier of 18 and awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. 2. It is the case of the appellant that on 10.12.1993 when the appellant was passing on his motor cycle bearing No. GJ 1 Q-790 on the road from Delhi Darwaja to Shahibaug and when he was passing on the road opposite Advance Tata Mill the opponent No. 1 came with his car bearing registration No. RJ 12 C.0193 driven in full speed and in rash and negligent manner dashed with the motor cycle of the appellant and knocked down him. It is averred that as a result thereof, the appellant was flung on the road and had suffered the head injuries and other injuries like fracture of the ribs etc., for which he was required to take the treatment. It is averred that he was unconscious and was removed to Civil Hospital and was treated as an indoor patient. It is averred that due to the head injuries on 16.12.1993 the operation was performed. He had also fracture of collar bone and it is averred that the appellant had suffered after effects. 3. Heard Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3. 4. Mr. Sandip Shah, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is improper, unjust and against the provisions of law. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the multiplier of 16 instead of 18 as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 when sufficient evidence regarding age are produced on record. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs. 70,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He, therefore, submitted that the award requires to be modified as prayed for. 5. Mr. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs. 70,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He, therefore, submitted that the award requires to be modified as prayed for. 5. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate for respondent No. 3 submitted that the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ahmedabad, is just and proper and do not require any interference. He submitted that the Tribunal has correctly taken the income as also applied the correct multiplier and the same requires no interference. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length and in great details. I have perused the averments made in the memo of appeal. Before the Tribunal the appellant produced sufficient evidence regarding his age which is just and proper. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the claimant. The multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. Hence this Court is inclined to award multiplier of 18 as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Keeping that in mind, this Court is of the view that multiplier of 18 is just and proper. 7. As regards claim for non-pecuniary benefit is concerned, Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering is just and reasonable. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 9. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.