JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tushar L. Sheth for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanvati for the respondent no.3 and learned advocate Mr. Alkesh N. Shah for the respondent no.6. Rest of the respondents though served, remain absent. 2. The appellant herein is original claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Porbandar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.84 of 2011 wherein respondents no.1 to 6 are opponents no.1 to 6 respectively being driver, owner and insurer of vehicles involved in the accident being Truck No.GJ-25 T-5435 and Trailer GJ-10 W-7171. Respondent no.4 and 5 being driver and owner of the Trailer No.GJ-10 W-7171 were deleted from the cause-title considering that appeal is mainly for quantum of compensation and when insurance company does not dispute its liability, because no notice was served upon them. 3. I have perused the record. The claimant has preferred the claim petition claiming Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for injury sustained by him in vehicular accident which took place on 02.02.2011. At the relevant time claimant was working as a cleaner in Truck No.GJ-25 T-5435 and when such truck was moving near Khanpur Crossing on Dholaka- Bagodara road, the driver of offending vehicle - Trailer No.GJ- 10 W-7171 had came in full speed and stopped on the middle of the road all of sudden and thereby, the truck of the victim had dashed with such trailer which resulted into serious injuries on left leg of the victim which was ultimately required to be amputated. For such injuries Dr. Sagar T. Chudasama has certified disability as 80% and therefore after allowing both the sides to adduce their evidence, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,32,680/- on different heads as under, considering Rs.3000/- as monthly income of the victim and taking 60% disability for body as a whole and applying 16 as suitable multiplier when victim was aged about 34 years:- Rs.3,45,600/- Future loss of Income (60% of Rs.3000/- = Rs.1800/-X12X16 Rs. 18,000/- Actual loss of income Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.2,49,080/- Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Transportation, Special Diet and attendant Rs.6,32,680/- Total Compensation 4. 18,000/- Actual loss of income Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.2,49,080/- Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Transportation, Special Diet and attendant Rs.6,32,680/- Total Compensation 4. Therefore, it is now quite, clear and certain that the tribunal has erred in not awarding just and reasonable compensation on different heads by not considering the prospective income, by reducing percentage of disability abruptly and by not awarding just and reasonable compensation for different conventional heads like pain, shock and suffering, amenities of life etc. Therefore, there is a reason to modify the award suitably. 5. Even if we may not disturb the presumption of the tribunal so far as monthly income is concerned, now it is well settled pursuant to decision of full bench of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 that tribunal shall consider prospective income of the claimant when they are young or atleast earning on the date of incident. Similarly considering the several other decisions, award for conventional heads should be just and reasonable rather than indicative when only Rs.10,000/- is awarded for pain, shock and suffering though there is amputation of leg. Thereby, considering the actual loss of income of the appellant as Rs.3000/- per month only, though it is submitted that it should be Rs.4500/- per month, as per the Pranay Sethi (Supra) there should be consideration of 40% prospective income. Thereby, average earning capacity of the claimant would be Rs.4200/-. 6. Similarly when doctor has certified disability to the tune of 80% for amputation of leg above knee, there is no reason for the tribunal to reduce it 60% when it is scheduled injury even under the Employees (Workmen's) Compensation Act, 1923 wherein disability for amputation of such nature would be certainly either 70% or 80% when actual majorment of stump is not recorded. But in any case when doctor has certified 80% disability, there is reason to believe that disablement is 80% and it cannot be reduced to 60%. Therefore, even though we may not considered disablement at the rate of 100%, it is submitted before us, there is no reason to reduce it from 80% to 60%. But in any case when doctor has certified 80% disability, there is reason to believe that disablement is 80% and it cannot be reduced to 60%. Therefore, even though we may not considered disablement at the rate of 100%, it is submitted before us, there is no reason to reduce it from 80% to 60%. Therefore, appellant is entitled to compensation under the future loss of income considering Rs.4200/- as average monthly earning capacity and 80% disability which would result into Rs.3360/- as monthly loss of earnings, thereby, applying 16 as suitable multiplier, total amount for loss of future income would come to Rs.6,45,120/- 80% of Rs.4200/-%=Rs.3360/-, Rs.3360/-X12X16) 7. Learned advocate for the appellant is relying upon the decision in the case of Jakir Hussein V/s. Sabir and others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 252 wherein Supreme Court has considered 100% loss of functional ability even in absence of physical disability and Rs.4500/- as monthly income. However, it cannot be ignored that all such cases to be looked into with referrence to facts and circumstance of each case and therefore, so far as income and disability are concerned, it is to be considered based upon available evidence and as per the decision in particular case on such issue. 8. As against that, respondent No.3 insurance company has supported award submitting that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, whereas the calculation as per the insurance company is only for Rs.6,32,680/- as total compensation contending that compensation for future loss of income may not be more than Rs.5,14,080/. However, when insurance company is not challenging the award may be because of considering marginal difference in award. Thus, it is so argued by the learned advocate for the insurance company. 9. In above background, if we peruse the decision relied upon by the claimant, it becomes clear that in the case of Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company reported in 2013 8 SCC389 of Supreme Court has even in the absence of evidence of income of model (actress) considered Rs.5,00,000/- as yearly income of the victim, award of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards loss of future earning and total Rs.79,66,000/- considering that disfigurement of face of celebrity would result into 100% disablement having regard to nature of vocation and functional disability sustained. However, while making calculation, Supreme Court has taken 50% of income only as a loss of future earning. 10,00,000/- towards loss of future earning and total Rs.79,66,000/- considering that disfigurement of face of celebrity would result into 100% disablement having regard to nature of vocation and functional disability sustained. However, while making calculation, Supreme Court has taken 50% of income only as a loss of future earning. Supreme Court has also observed as under: “It is well settled principle that in granting compensation for personal injury, the injured has to be compensated (1)for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages in personal loss in addition to what is awarded by the tribunal and Supreme Court.” 9.1. In Syed Sadiq V/s. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company reported in 2014 (2) SCC 735 , Supreme Court has held that claimant being vegetable vendors involved in unorganized sector doing his own business, were not expected to produce documents to prove their monthly income and that claimant might have to change his artificial leg from time to time and therefore, was entitle for medical cost and incidental expenses with future prospect of income. Thereby Apex Court has considered 85% disablement and increased 50% of income as a future prospects and awarded total Rs.21,65,100/by adding following amount of compensation in addition to what is awarded by the tribunal and High Court. Rs. 50,000/- Cost of artificial leg Rs. 75,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Loss of marriage prospectus Rs. 75,000/- Loss of amenities: Rs.1,00,000/- Medical and incidental cost Rs. 25,000/- Cost of litigation 9.2. In Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and others reported in 2014 (5) SCC 330 , Supreme Court has awarded Rs.14,59,100/- for the amputation of right leg above knee considering 70% as loss of earning capacity. Wherein, now Apex Court has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- for pain, shock and suffering in addition to Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities of life, Rs.75,000/- for loss of expectation and Rs.25,000/- for cost of litigation. 9.3. In K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anr. Wherein, now Apex Court has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- for pain, shock and suffering in addition to Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities of life, Rs.75,000/- for loss of expectation and Rs.25,000/- for cost of litigation. 9.3. In K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anr. reported in 2008 (8) SCC 518 Supreme Court has considered that amputation of the right leg upto knee joint would result into 100% disability and thereby, restored the judgment and award of commissioner by setting aside the judgment of the High Court, reducing the compensation under Workmen’s compensation Act, 1923. 9.4. In Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others reported in 2012 (2) SCC 267 , Supreme Court has in case of amputation of leg below knee enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal considering that earning capacity of the victim, may be as high as 100% but in no case, it would be less than 90%. 9.5. In Pratap Narain Singh DEO Vs. Srinivas Sabata and ANR. Reported in AIR 1976 222, the four judges of Supreme Court has upheld the reason of the commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act that by loss of left hand above the elbow would render victim unfit for the work of carpenter which cannot be done by one hand and thereby he was at 100% loss of earning capacity. 9.6. In R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. And others reported in 1995 (1)SCC 551 , Supreme Court has awarded the amount of Rs.35,00,000/- because of paraplegia below the waist suffered by claimant which is considered as 100% disability wherein Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded for pain, shock and sufferings in addition to Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of amenities of life. 10. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is need to modify the impugned award by awarding just and reasonable compensation. In view of above cited cases, which becomes a law of land, it cannot be said that claimant being cleaner may not have better prospect and may not be entitled to better amenities in his life. Therefore, when tribunal has failed to consider appropriate income of the claimant and not awarded just and reasonable compensation on different heads, it would be appropriate to reconsider the quantum by taking Rs.3000/- as earning at the time of incident and 40% as prospective income. Therefore, when tribunal has failed to consider appropriate income of the claimant and not awarded just and reasonable compensation on different heads, it would be appropriate to reconsider the quantum by taking Rs.3000/- as earning at the time of incident and 40% as prospective income. So far as disability is concerned, though claimant has pleaded to consider it as 100% because of amputation, since claimant is enable to do some work by sitting on floor, let disability be considered as 60% only as taken by the Tribunal, which would result into total compensation of Rs.6,45,120/- for further loss of income. Thereby total amount would be Rs.13,50,200/- as under:- Rs. 1,50,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.,1,50,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000/- Expectation of life Rs.2,49,080/- Medical Expenses Rs. 30,000/- Transportation, Special Diet, Attendance and Rs. 26,000/- Actual loss of Income Rs.13,50,200/- Total compensation 11. Thereby there would be additional award of Rs.7,17,520/-. In view of the above discussion, the Appeal is partly needs to be allowed by awarding Rs.7,17,520/- considering the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh reported in 2003 (2) SCC 274 . 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed whereby impugned award is modified so as to confirm that claimant is entitled to total amount of Rs.13,50,200/- as compensation with 9% interest from the date of application for its payment from the original opponents No. 1 to 3 only as per the award. However, if opponents have already deposited the amount of compensation as per award, then they are liable to pay additional amount of compensation only being Rs.7,17,520/- with 9% interest to the claimant. Such amount shall be paid in 12 weeks from the date of this judgment. Rest of the conditions of award shall remain unchanged. 13. R & P to be send back to the concerned trial Court.