JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the original claimant. She seeks enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Himmatnagar, in the award dated 03.11.2004 passed in MACP No.735 of 1995. The claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw when it was hit from behind by tempo causing serious injuries to her. There is no dispute about these basic facts. Insurance company has not challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal. We may therefore straightway focus on the question of adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 2. The claimant was aged 35 years on the date of accident. According to her, she was engaged in labour work and also selling milk to the milk cooperatives. Her income was stated to be Rs.1200/- per month from such sources. In the accident, she received multiple injuries. She suffered compound fracture of the skull She also suffered fractures on the hands and fingers. She filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from the drivers, owners and insurers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.94,936/-. This comprised of compensation for current as well as future loss of income, medical treatment, and special diet as well as pain, shock and suffering. The Tribunal believed the income of the injured at Rs.1200/- per month and believed that she had suffered permanent bodily disability of 39% of body as a whole. Multiplier of 16 was adopted looking to her age and that is how the Tribunal computed a sum of Rs.70,336/- towards future loss of income. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- each for medical treatment and special diet and attendant charges. Rs.3600/- was awarded for actual loss of income of three months. Rs.7,000/- was awarded for pain, shock and suffering. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Tribunal did not grant any rise for the future income. The Tribunal erred in not accepting the statement of the doctor that the injured has suffered disability of 58% of the body as a whole. She also contended that inadequate amount has been awarded for pain, shock and suffering. No compensation has been awarded for loss of amenities of life and future medical treatment, though there was evidence in this respect. 4. She also contended that inadequate amount has been awarded for pain, shock and suffering. No compensation has been awarded for loss of amenities of life and future medical treatment, though there was evidence in this respect. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company opposed the appeal contending that the Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation. 5. The claimant was examined at Exh.31. She deposed that during the accident, she received fracture injuries on her head, right elbow and left hand fingers. She lost consciousness for sometime due to injuries. She was first taken to hospital at Idar. From there she was taken to Civil hospital, Ahmedabad, for further treatment on the same day where she was treated as an indoor patient. She had undergone head surgery. After she was discharged from the Civil hospital, she had further complications, due to which, she had to take treatment at the private hospital at Idar. Due to the injury, there was a dent in her head. She felt constant pain and also sometimes felt giddy. Her vision had also diminished. She had memory loss and lost weight also. She had taken treatment from Neurosurgeon Dr.Sheth. Due to the injuries on the fingers, she was unable to close palm in a fist, as a result of which, her left hand grip was not sufficiently strong. She was aged 35 years, was engaged in labour work. She also had buffaloes at home and sold the milk. Her monthly income was Rs.1200/-. 6. The claimant examined Dr.Vijay Sheth at Exh.56. He deposed that for the head injuries, the claimant was treated at Civil hospital at Ahmedabad upto 31.05.1994 where, she was operated for a depressed fracture. Drafting had to be undertaken for covering the head. She often felt giddy, had headache, her right eyesight had diminished. She complained about loss of memory and loss of appetite. She had pain in the back and had difficulty in standing. Her temple region had disfigured because of the injury. There was a gap in the skull of 10 x 8 cms. The referral eye specialist had also certified that she had partial loss of vision. He had also referred the patient to radiologist for permanent disability. He opined that the patient had suffered permanent partial disability of 58% of the body as a whole. There was a gap in the skull of 10 x 8 cms. The referral eye specialist had also certified that she had partial loss of vision. He had also referred the patient to radiologist for permanent disability. He opined that the patient had suffered permanent partial disability of 58% of the body as a whole. In his opinion, further operation on the skull could be carried out. He had found damage to the spinal code which, according to him, could be repaired by an operation, approximate cost of which was Rs.30,000/-. 7. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to the doctor that if the patient had been negligent in the followup treatment, complications could arise. He denied the suggestion that if the head was covered, the disfigurement would not be visible. 8. On the basis of such evidence, the Claims Tribunal believed the age of claimant was 35 years and her income at Rs.1200/- per month. The Tribunal however, did not account for any rise in future income. Disability of the claimant was assessed at 34%. This was worked out on the basis that 58% disability opined by doctor Sheth, in the opinion of the Tribunal, would project to 29% disability of the body as a whole and 12% disability opined by the eye specialist would convert into disability of 5% of the body as a whole and hence, the figure of 34% of the disability. 9. Having heard the advocates, I believe the claimant would be entitled to future rise in income at the rate of 40% on the figure of Rs.1200/- per month believed by the Tribunal as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 (3) GLR 536. Her prospective income therefore would be Rs.1200/- plus Rs.480/- i. e. Rs.1680/- per month. 10. Regarding disability, in my opinion, the Tribunal has gone rather mechanically and arithmetically. In terms of medical consideration, the learned Judge may even be right. However, when one considers the loss of income of an injured due to bodily injuries received in a vehicular accident, at times, such mechanical calculation must take a backseat. The Courts have therefore evolved the concept of functional disability as against the physical disability. In terms of medical consideration, the learned Judge may even be right. However, when one considers the loss of income of an injured due to bodily injuries received in a vehicular accident, at times, such mechanical calculation must take a backseat. The Courts have therefore evolved the concept of functional disability as against the physical disability. In the present case, the claimant was a labourer in whose case the reduction in the earning capacity shall have to be judged on the basis of the permanent disablement caused by the injuries. What has come on record through reliable evidence is that even after the skull operation, there was a depression in the head, due to which, she felt loss of memory and appetite and reduced vision. She was unable to carry weight on her head. The injuries to her spinal cord caused difficulty in standing for long durations and the fracture on her left fingers resulted into her left hand grip being weakened. All these factors would undoubtedly have major impact on her ability to perform the ordinary duties of a farm labourer. In a country like India, where even otherwise ablebodied workers are available in abandon, the farm owner or an employer would certainly not prefer to engage a person who suffers from such serious limitations. The Tribunal therefore ought to have projected the functional disability of the claimant at 50% in the minimum. The loss of future income of the claimant would be Rs.840/- per month i.e. Rs.1080/- per annum. Adopting a multiplier of 16, compensation under the head of future loss of income would be Rs.1,61,280/-, rounded off to Rs.1,61,500/-. 11. Compensation of Rs.3,000/- each for medical treatment and special diet etc calls for no interference in absence of any additional evidence. The Tribunal has also awarded actual loss of salary for three months which also requires no enhancement. For pain, shock and suffering and future loss of amenities of life, amount of Rs.7,000/- needs revision. The claimant had to undergo multiple operations. The injuries left permanent bodily complaints. Her head and temple region was disfigured. At the same time, I cannot lose sight of the fact that the accident took place in the year 1994 and the standards prevailing at the relevant time would be relevant. The claimant had to undergo multiple operations. The injuries left permanent bodily complaints. Her head and temple region was disfigured. At the same time, I cannot lose sight of the fact that the accident took place in the year 1994 and the standards prevailing at the relevant time would be relevant. Considering such factor, a total sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Though the claimant has put up a claim of Rs.30,000/- for future medical treatment, the same cannot be granted. Firstly, it was a bare statement of a doctor that she needs a further operation of spinal code. In his opinion such operation would cure her spinal code complaints. The claimant is already reimbursed for loss of earning capacity which also takes into account the disability arising out of a spinal code injury. 12. In the result, the claimant would receive compensation as under: Future loss of Income Medical treatment, medicines etc. Actual loss of income Pain, shock and sufferings and loss of amenities Special diet, attendant charges etc. Total Rs.1,61,500/- Rs. 3,000/ Rs. 3,600/ Rs. 15,000/ Rs. 3,000/ Rs. 1,86,100/, rounded off to Rs. 1,86,000/ 13. The Claims Tribunal having awarded Rs.94,936/-, the claimant under this appeal shall receive additional compensation of Rs.91,064/-, again rounded off to Rs.91,100/-. Such sum shall be deposited by the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of actual award till its realization. This shall be done latest by 20.02.2018. 14. First Appeal is disposed of. R & P to be transmitted back to the trial Court.