JUDGMENT S. G Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for the appellants, whereas learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat for respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr. Sunil Parikh for respondent No.5. Rest of the respondents, though served, remained absent. Perused the record as well as record and proceedings. 2. The appellant herein is original claimant and victim of road accident whereas respondents are original opponents being driver, owner and insurer of vehicles involved in the accident. 3. Appellant has challenged the consolidated judgment and award dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.)(Court No.10) at Bhuj-Kachchh in MACP No.545 of 2006 and 551 of 2006. The Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs. 7,30,744/- as compensation for the injuries raised by him in vehicular accident with 9% interest. However, the said award is only against respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurer of truck No.GJ-12-W9155. 4. None of the opponents has challenged the award by filing the appeal, hence it becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding nature of incident, it's result and liability of insurance company-respondent/opponent No.3 to indemnify the owner of the vehicle by payment of compensation to the victim and therefore, all those details regarding nature of incident and its result etc. are not much material to be reproduced herein, more particularly, when those details are well described in impugned award and pleadings. 5. However, when appeal is mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded to the appellant-injured claimant, the basic details for considering that whether award is just and reasonable, following facts are material for consideration. Victim : appellant Fatehkhan Turiya Jat Age of victim : 25 years Occupation: serving as a cleaner on truck No. GJ12 T8793 Income of the victim: Rs. 4000/- per month Injuries sustained by victim: Fracture of tibiafibula lower end of right leg. fracture of shaft of right femur. fracture of medial malleolus of left leg. CLWs on different parts of the body Result of injuries: 74% disablement of body due to amputation of right leg with 9.5 inch stumped below knee Evidence: Deposition of claimant/victim at Exh.72 Treatment papers of victim at Exh.58, 61, 62, 90 Injuries certificate at Exh.59 Medical bills at Exh.60 Disability certificate and evidence of doctor at Exh.76, 80 FIR at Exh.82 Pancnama at Exh.83 Insurance policy of offending Vehicle No.GJ12W9155 at Exh.84. 6. 6. In addition to the above basic information, it may be recollected here that on 28.08.2006 when claimant was working as a cleaner on truck No. GJ-12- T-8793 was going towards Ahmedabad, near village Kanaiya, opponent No.1-diver of other truck No.GJ-12- W-9155 came in over speed and in rash and negligent manner so as to clash with the truck of the appellant-claimant. Though two vehicles were involved in the incident, considering the available evidence, tribunal has fixed the liability of driver, owner and insurer of truck No.GJ-12-W-9155 only, since it was being driven on wrong side of the road, but there is no appeal or challenge to such award, hence it becomes final. 7. So far as payment details are concerned, the appellant has categorically proved on record medical papers which confirms that he was remained hospitalized for 45 days and that his right leg was amputed. 8. Upon and above factual details, tribunal has awarded compensation as under: Future loss of income: Rs.5,88,744/- Medical expenses: Rs. 50,000/- Pain, shock and sufferings: Rs. 50,000/- Transportation, attendance and rich diet: Rs. 30,000/- Actual loss of income: Rs. 12,000/- Total: Rs.7,30,744/- 9. For considering the future loss of income, Tribunal has considered Rs. 3000/- per month as earning on date of accident and added 30% as perspective income and applied 17 as suitable multiplier. 10. Therefore, appellant has challenged such award mainly for the quantum of compensation contending that Tribunal has erred in and not considering Rs. 4000/- as income of the victim on the date of accident and not taking 40% as prospective income as per the decision in the case of Syed Sadiq and Others Vs. Division Manager, United India Insurance Company, (2014) 2 SCC 735 . It is further contended that Tribunal has also failed to award the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- for pain, shock and sufferings relying upon the decision in case of Syed Sadiq as well as Sanjaykumar Vs. Ashok kumar and Others, (2014) 2 SCJ 753. The appellant has also submitted that considering the amputation of right leg and evidence of the doctor confirming that because of amputation of leg and because of injuries and disablement of other leg also now, it would be difficult for the appellant-claimant to work as a labourer, and more particularly, as a cleaner on the truck and therefore, Tribunal should have considered 100% disablement. Therefore, the claimant has calculated the total amount of compensation as Rs. 17,01,600/-, adding Rs. 1,00,000/- for future medical expenses and crutches, Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of amenities of life and Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of expectation of life or shortening of life. 11. Perused the entire evidence so also the decision relied upon by the appellants, it is clear and certain that in such cases of amputation of part of body like leg with too of the laborer, there must be appropriate award of compensation and therefore, there is certainly ground or reason to modify the impugned award by awarding just and reasonable compensation based upon the available evidence on record in the form of result of the incident and relevant decision of the Apex Court in similar cases. 12. 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. 6,81,080/- 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 Mr.Shelat for the insurance company. 13. 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, (2013) 8 SCC 389 of Supreme Court. However, in the absence of evidence of income of model (actress) considering Rs. 5,00,000/- as yearly income of the victim, award of Rs. 1000000/- 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. 5,00,000/- as yearly income of the victim, award of Rs. 1000000/- 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." 13.1. In Syed Sadiq, 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 prospect 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. Cost of artificial leg: Rs. 50,000/- Pain and suffering: Rs. 75,000/- Loss of marriage prospectus: Rs. 50,000/- Loss of amenities: Rs. 75,000/- Medical and incidental cost: Rs.1,00,000/- Cost of litigation: Rs. 25,000/- 13.2 In Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others, (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. 13.3 In K.Janardan 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. 13.3 In K.Janardan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 5831 of 2002 on 09.05.2008, 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. 13.4 In Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and Others in Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2012 on 10.01.2012, 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%. 13.5 In Pratap Narain Singh DEO Vs. Srinivas Sabata and ANR., (1976) AIR SC 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. 13.6 In R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (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. 14. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is certain 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 of different heads, it would be appropriate to reconsider the quantum by taking Rs. 4000/- 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 of different heads, it would be appropriate to reconsider the quantum by taking Rs. 4000/- 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 74% only as taken by the Tribunal, which would result into total compensation of Rs. 8,15,184/- for further loss of income. Thereby total amount would be Rs. 14,15,184/- as under:- Pain and suffering: Rs.1,50,000/- Loss of expectation of life i.e. marriage prospectus: Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of amenities: Rs.1,50,000/- Future Medical expenses and artificial leg: Rs.1,00,000/- Medical expense: Rs. 50,000/- Transportation and special diet: Rs. 30,000/- Actual loss of income: Rs. 20,000/- 14.1. Thereby there would be additional award of Rs. 6,84,440/-.In view of the above discussion, the Appeal is partly needs to be allowed by awarding Rs. 6,84,440/-considering the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 . 15. 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. 14,15,184/- as compensation with 9% interest from the date of application for its payment from the original opponent 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. 6,84,440/- 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. Record and proceedings to be sent back forthwith.