JUDGMENT S. G. SHAH, J. 1. Both these appeals are arising out the same accident and consolidated award and judgment in M.A.C.P. Nos. 871 of 2009 and 872 of 2009. Therefore, these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hiren Modi for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.P.P.Lakhani for the respondent no.2. Notice upon respondent no.1 can be dispensed with considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of A.Robert V/s. United Insurance Co. Ltd., (1999) AIR SC 2977 read with Order 47 Rule 14(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure because opponent no.1 is owner though served but remain absent before the tribunal and issue raised by the claimant in this appeal for quantum of compensation as well as negligence. Compensation awarded in his favour for injury sustained by him in a vehicular accident. I also perused the record as well as Record and proceedings. 3. In First Appeal No.2906 of 2017, the appellant herein is victim of the road accident which took place on 07.02.2009 when claimant was travelling his Rickshaw Chakdo No.GJ-7 TT-2097 which was driven by the opponent No.1 in rash and negligent manner. At about 08:00 p.m. when they reached near village Revari, one truck came with full light and the opponent no.1 lost control over the steering of vehicle the rickshawchaakdo, thus it was turned turtled which resulted into fracture of right leg of the appellant for which operative treatment was provided, but ultimately right leg was amputed below knee. The appellant claimant was doing masonry work before such accident and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month for livelihood of his family and therefore, because of such injuries, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- from owner and insurer of the offending truck. 4. By impugned award dated 26.04.2017 in M.A.C.P. No.872 of 2009, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 7,62,223/- with 9% interest to the appellant. Being aggrieved by such amount of compensation the appellant claimant has preferred this appeal. When none of the opponent had challenged the award, it becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding nature of incident, its result and liability of insurance company in making payment to the claimant so as to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and therefore, all such details are not material to be reproduced herein. 5. When none of the opponent had challenged the award, it becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding nature of incident, its result and liability of insurance company in making payment to the claimant so as to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and therefore, all such details are not material to be reproduced herein. 5. So far as quantum of compensation awarded to the present appellant of First Appeal No. 2906 of 2017 is concerned, the tribunal has considered monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 2750/- per month and taken 50% disability for entire body and taking 16 as suitable multiplier, Rs. 2,64,000/- towards future loss of income. Rs. 25,000/- Towards Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs. 6000/- Towards Special diet and transportation Rs.4,56,223/- Towards Medical Expenses Rs. 11,000/- Towards Actual loss of income for four months Rs.7,62,223/- Total compensation 6. Thus, it is 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. 7. 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, (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. 25,000/- 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. 4000/- per month only, though it is submitted that it should be Rs. 15,000/- per month, as per the Pranay Sethi there should be consideration of 40% prospective income. Thereby, average earning capacity of the claimant would be Rs. 4600/-. 8. Thereby, considering the actual loss of income of the appellant as Rs. 4000/- per month only, though it is submitted that it should be Rs. 15,000/- per month, as per the Pranay Sethi there should be consideration of 40% prospective income. Thereby, average earning capacity of the claimant would be Rs. 4600/-. 8. Though doctor has certified 50% disability for amputation of the right leg below knee and though tribunal has also considered 50% disablement, considering the fact that when it is schedule injury even under the Employees (Workmen's) Compensation Act, 1923 wherein disability for amputation of such nature would be between 70% to 80% based upon actual amputation, therefore, though doctor has certified disablement at 50%, even if we may not considered it 100% for body as a whole because of amputation, there is no reason to consider it less than 70% being schedule injury. 9. Therefore, appellant is entitled to compensation under the future loss of income considering Rs. 4600/- as average monthly earning capacity and 70% disability which would result into Rs. 3220/- as monthly loss of earnings, thereby, applying 16 as suitable multiplier, total amount for loss of future income would come to Rs. 6,18,240/- (70% of Rs. 4600/-=Rs.3220/-, Rs. 3220/- X12X16) 10. Learned advocate for the appellant is relying upon the decision in the case of Jakir Hussein V/s. Sabir and Others, (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 reference 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. 11. As against that, respondent No.2 insurance company has supported award submitting that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. However, when insurance company has not challenging the award, considering the cited decisions it would be appropriate to award just and reasonable compensation on all different heads. 12. In above background, if we peruse the decision relied upon by the claimant, it becomes clear that in the case of Rekha Jain Vs. However, when insurance company has not challenging the award, considering the cited decisions it would be appropriate to award just and reasonable compensation on all different heads. 12. 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 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. 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." 12.1 In Syed Sadiq V/s. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, (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 12.2 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. 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 12.2 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. 12.3 In K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anr., (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. 12.4 In Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and Others, (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%. 12.5 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. 12.6 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. 13. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is need to modify the impugned award by awarding just and reasonable compensation. 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. 13. 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 when claimant was doing masonry work, he 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. 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 70%, which would result into total compensation of Rs. 6,18,240/- for further loss of income. Thereby total amount would be Rs. 16,06,240/- as under:- Rs.1,50,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Expectation of life Rs.4,60,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Transportation, Special Diet, Attendance and Rs. 18,000/- Actual loss of Income Rs.1,00,000/- Artificial leg including future medical expenses but without further interest Rs.16,06,240/- Total compensation Thereby, there would be additional award of Rs. 8,44,017/-. 14. In First Appeal No.2905 of 2017 the appellant herein is also victim of the road accident which took place on 07.02.2009 when claimant was travelling in rickshaw. In the same accident appellant has received fracture near right elbow with several other injuries. The appellant claimant was doing masonry work before such accident and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month for livelihood of his family and therefore, because of such injuries, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- from owner and insurer of the offending truck. 15. By impugned award dated 26.04.2017 in M.A.C.P. No.871 of 2009, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,44,568/- with 9% interest to the appellant. 15,000/- per month for livelihood of his family and therefore, because of such injuries, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- from owner and insurer of the offending truck. 15. By impugned award dated 26.04.2017 in M.A.C.P. No.871 of 2009, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,44,568/- with 9% interest to the appellant. Being aggrieved by such amount of compensation the appellant claimant has preferred this appeal when none of the opponent had challenged the award, it becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding nature of incident, its result and liability of insurance company in making payment to the claimant so as to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and therefore, all such details are not material to be reproduced herein. 16. So far as quantum of compensation awarded to the present appellant of First Appeal No.2905 of 2017 is concerned, the tribunal has considered monthly income of the appellant is Rs. 2700/- per month and taken 20% disability for entire body and taking 17 as suitable multiplier, Rs. 1,12,200/- towards future loss of income. Rs. 15,000/- Towards mental pain, shock and suffering Rs. 6000/- Towards Special diet and transportation Rs.1,03,118/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 8250/- Towards actual loss of income for three months Rs.2,44,568/- Total compensation 17. Thus, it is 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. 18. 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, (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. 15,000/- 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. Similarly considering the several other decisions, award for conventional heads should be just and reasonable rather than indicative when only Rs. 15,000/- 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. 4000/- per month only, though it is submitted that it should be Rs. 15,000/- per month, as per the Pranay Sethi there should be consideration of 40% prospective income. Thereby, average earning capacity of the claimant would be Rs. 4600/-. 19. Therefore, appellant is entitled to compensation under the future loss of income considering Rs. 4600/- as average monthly earning capacity and 20% disability which would result into Rs. 920/- as monthly loss of earnings, thereby, applying 17 as suitable multiplier, total amount for loss of future income would come to Rs. 1,87,680/- (20% of Rs. 4600/-=Rs.920/-, Rs. 920/- X12X17) 20. 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 was doing masonry work and 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. 4000/- as earning at the time of incident and 40% as prospective income, which would result into total compensation of Rs. 1,87,680/- for further loss of income. Thereby total amount would be Rs. 30,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.1,05,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Transportation, Special Diet, Attendance and Rs. 12,000/- Actual loss of Income Rs.3,44,680/- Total compensation 21. In view of the above discussion, both the First Appeals are partly needs to be allowed by awarding additional amount of Rs. 8,44,017/- in First Appeal No.2906 of 2017 and awarding Rs. 1,00,112/- in First Appeal No.2905 of 2017 considering the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 . 22. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed whereby impugned award is modified so as to confirm that claimant of First Appeal No.2905 of 2017 is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 1,00,112/- in First Appeal No.2905 of 2017 considering the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 . 22. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed whereby impugned award is modified so as to confirm that claimant of First Appeal No.2905 of 2017 is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 1,00,112/- and claimant of First Appeal No.2906 of 2017 is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for future medical expenditure without interest and Rs. 7,44,017/- as compensation with 9% interest from the date of application for its payment from the opponents jointly and severally 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. Such amount shall be paid in 12 weeks from the date of this judgment. Rest of the conditions of award shall remain unchanged. 23. R & P to be send back to the concerned trial Court.