JUDGMENT : S G Shah, J. - Heard learned advocate Mr. T.L. Sheth for the appellant, learned advocate Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for respondent No.3; whereas respondent No.2, owner of private vehicle, though served, has chosen not to appear. Perused the record. 2. The appellant is original claimant; whereas respondent No.1 is owner of ST Bus No.GJ-18Y-3018 and respondent No.3 is insurer of motorcycle No.GJ-03-DE-5977. Since none of the opponents have preferred the appeal by challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 20.2.2017 by M.A.C.T. of Rajkot, there is reason to believe that there is no dispute regarding nature of accident, its result and liability of opponents to pay compensation, because, practically, appeal is only by the claimant and that too for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded in her favour. So far as inter se liability of driver and owner of both the vehicles involved in the accident are concerned, the Tribunal has held the driver of ST Bus as sole negligent and thereby, awarded total amount of Rs.4,95,160/- as compensation to be paid by the opponent No.1 ST Corporation only and thereby, exonerated the liability to pay compensation by the owner and insurer of other vehicle being motorcycle No.GJ03-DE-5977. However, opponent No.1 ST Corporation has also not challenged the award and therefore, there is no issue regarding negligence. 3. Therefore, though factual details are not much material to be recollected and reproduced, only for reference, it can be recorded that on 4.12.2000, when appellant victim was going as a pillion rider on motorcycle being driven by opponent No.2, the driver of ST Bus has dashed the motorcycle on its backside, resulting into serious injuries to the victim. Though opponent No.2, owner of the motorcycle has not remained present before us, he has remained present before the Tribunal through advocate and both the drivers have deposed on oath regarding nature of incident before the Tribunal and after relying on such oral as well as documentary evidence, Tribunal has held that ST Bus driver was sole negligent. Though opponent No.2, owner of the motorcycle has not remained present before us, he has remained present before the Tribunal through advocate and both the drivers have deposed on oath regarding nature of incident before the Tribunal and after relying on such oral as well as documentary evidence, Tribunal has held that ST Bus driver was sole negligent. So far as injuries are concerned, the victim has received serious injuries on her head and she became unconscious immediately after the accident for which she was initially treated at Government Hospital, Dhoraji, then General & C.M.Z. Hospital at Junagadh and then at N.M. Virani Hospital at Rajkot, where she was shifted on the same day of accident and thereby, because of severe head injuries she and her family members must have suffered great pain, shock and suffering for taking the unconscious claimant from Dhoraji to Junagadh and then to Rajkot. The injury certificate by all such hospitals are at Exhs.30, 31 and 32 respectively, which confirm that there was linear fracture on right temporal region and there was intracerebral hemorrhage on head of the appellant. The CT scan of the appellant at Exh.36 confirms that such intracerebral hemorrhage is on left basal ganglia and periventricular region with linear fracture of petrous and squmous part of right temporal bone, which resulted into hemorrhage. Because of such injuries, her CT scans were done repeatedly for five times and when she was discharged on 16.12.2010, disclosing that she was admitted in ICU for observation and management of injuries, and that CT scan of brain confirms the above injuries. The ultimate result of the injuries are as under:- (a) hemorrhage at left temporal lobe; (b) intracerebral hematoma at left basal ganglia capsular region with surrounding edema; (c) mild compression over left lateral ventricle. She was advised to rush to nearby hospital in case of convulsion, vomiting or unconsciousness and to keep the head always in high position, confirming that she should not be worried for headache, nausea, giddiness and physiotherapy of limbs was advised. Therefore, the injury certificate or discharge card confirms that even after application of medicine, there was no specific treatment and she was kept in observation only and her difficulties would remain forever for which she was not even allowed to sleep in straight position, but advised to keep head in high position. Therefore, the injury certificate or discharge card confirms that even after application of medicine, there was no specific treatment and she was kept in observation only and her difficulties would remain forever for which she was not even allowed to sleep in straight position, but advised to keep head in high position. The CT scan in the month of June, 2011 confirms that there is gliosis in left basal ganglia region. She has to undergo regular physiotherapy treatment, for which relevant documentary evidence is produced on record. However, ultimately, Dr. Dinesh Gajera a Neuro Surgeon of Sterling Hospitals, Rajkot has after examining the appellant and scrutinizing her treatment papers, certified that appellant requires stick for walking, she cannot write, she cannot speak properly, she forgets the recent events and there was headache and virtigo because of hemiparesis, resulted due to injuries. Because of such comprehensive impairment of speech and movement of the appellant, Doctor has certified that there is 54% permanent partial disability of entire body. 4. It is undisputed fact that the appellant was aged 45 years at the time of accident and she was a household lady and also doing agricultural work. Therefore, it was contended by the appellant before the Tribunal that she was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. and that she had to spend Rs.50,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and other expenses and Rs.15,000/- for special diet. It is also contended that she has to engage a lady for doing household work since, now, she cannot do the same. 5. Relying upon the available evidence on record from both the sides, which includes the deposition of claimant and deposition of Doctor, who certified disability, so also deposition of driver of both the vehicles, the Tribunal has in all awarded Rs.4,95,160/- as compensation under different heads as under:- Rs.2,72,160/- Future loss of income Rs.1,63,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Actual loss of income Rs. 45,000/- Pain, shock and suffering, including special diet, attendant and transportation charges. For arriving at the figure of Rs.2,72,160/- for future loss of income, the Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000/- as earning capacity of the victim after applying 54% disability with only 14 as suitable multiplier. Therefore, appellant has preferred this appeal on quantum of compensation, contending that the Tribunal has failed in awarding just and reasonable compensation. For arriving at the figure of Rs.2,72,160/- for future loss of income, the Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000/- as earning capacity of the victim after applying 54% disability with only 14 as suitable multiplier. Therefore, appellant has preferred this appeal on quantum of compensation, contending that the Tribunal has failed in awarding just and reasonable compensation. Irrespective of all other contentions, when Tribunal has awarded only Rs.45,000/- in aggregate for three different heads viz. pain, shock and suffering, special diet and attendant as well as transportation charges, it becomes clear that Tribunal has failed to realise the difference between the award of compensation for pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss, since such award is for both such losses, which cannot be clubbed together, for the simple reason that for some loss, there is possibility of actual calculation; whereas for other, conceptual principle is to be relied upon for which there may not be any calculation. 6. In support of her claim, appellant is relying upon following decisions:- a) between Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. National Insurance Company, (2010) 9 SCC 218 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has relief upon and referred as many as 23 cases; whereas same judgment has been followed in as many as 45 other judgments. In such cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically confirmed that there cannot be monetary calculation for the services rendered by household wife and that in case of housewife, her income cannot be considered less than Rs.5,000/- p.m. Like the reported case, in the present case, respondent did not adduce any evidence by controverting the evidence regarding income by the claimant, when she has claimed that she is earning Rs.4,000/- only. b) between Dixit Kumar Vs. Om Prakash Goel, (2017) AIR SC 2943 wherein also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has confirmed that for an earning person like the present appellant, minimum income cannot be considered and thereby, it was held that Rs.5,000/- p.m. would be reasonable income. c) between Kavita Vs. Deepak & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 604 wherein for loss of memory and capacity of hearing of a 30 year old victim, Rs.2,000/- p.m. Was awarded towards attendant charges for 25 years and Rs.3,000/- p.m. was awarded for physiotherapy charges, whereas, additional Rs.3 Lacs was awarded for pain, shock and suffering and another Rs.3 Lacs was awarded for loss of amenities of life and loss of life expectancy. Thereby, total award was Rs.34.4 Lacs. While awarding such amount, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that - "It is sufficient to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity is distinct and does not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses" d) between V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi, (2014) 11 SCC 178 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has awarded Rs.30,93,000/-, relying upon decisions in as many as 11 cases against the award of Rs.6,46,000/- by the Tribunal. While doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the earning of the victim from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.18,000/-. e) Unreported judgment in First Appeal No.554 of 2014 between Soni Nandlalbhai Mohanbhai Vs. Asutosh Sanyal & Ors., wherein the Division Bench of this court has enhanced the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.21,90,000/- by awarding Rs.3 Lacs towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs.1,50,000/- for attendant charges in future when the claimant was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. and when he became 100% disabled, since he was not in a position to get up. 7. Therefore, if we scrutinize the available evidence before us, it becomes clear that the Tribunal has failed to award just and reasonable compensation on all heads and thereby, the impugned award needs to be modified by awarding just and reasonable amount of compensation considering injuries, its effect. So far as income of the claimant is concerned, even if we consider the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein Rs.5,000/- is considered as income of a housewife, even if we consider Rs.4,000/- as pleaded and stated on oath by the claimant, the fact remains that the claimant has categorically adduced the evidence regarding her prospective income as Rs.8,000/-. So far as income of the claimant is concerned, even if we consider the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein Rs.5,000/- is considered as income of a housewife, even if we consider Rs.4,000/- as pleaded and stated on oath by the claimant, the fact remains that the claimant has categorically adduced the evidence regarding her prospective income as Rs.8,000/-. However, even if we may not add prospective income as pleaded and deposed on oath, atleast relying upon the decision of full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , in a given case, atleast 40% increase for prospective income is must. Therefore, even if income of the claimant is Rs.4,000/- p.m., adding Rs.1,600/- as 40% towards prospective income, the average earning capacity of the victim would be Rs.5,600/-. Thereby, when Doctor has certified 54% disability, monthly loss of dependency would be Rs.3,024/-. Thereby, applying 14 as suitable multiplier, the total loss of future income would be Rs.5,08,032/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to such amount for future loss of income. Considering the total medical expenditure and available medical evidence on record, it would be appropriate to enhance the amount on other different heads as under:- Rs.5,08,032/- Future loss of income Rs.1,65,000/- Medical and treatment expenses Rs.3,00,000/- Towards actual loss of income plus expenses for attendant charges for life time. Rs.1,00,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 27,000/- Towards transportation Rs.11,00,032/- Total Compensation 8. Therefore, the present First Appeal is partly allowed, whereby, the impugned award is modified so as to confirm that appellant is entitled to Rs.11,00,000/- with 9% interest from the opponent/respondent No.1. Rest of the condition/s in the award shall remain unchanged. 9. R & P be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.