JUDGMENT & ORDER : S. G. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Devang Bhatt with learned advocate Mr. S.H. Munshaw for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. N.K. Thakkar for the respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served remained absent being driver of the appellant- Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. 2. The appellant is Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation being owner of the ST buses. The respondent No.1 is the original claimant, whereas respondent No.2 is the driver of the appellant and driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Anand in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 7845 of 2006 (old No. 2389 of 1999). By such impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,29,700/- towards compensation to the injured claimant with 9% interest. 3. The appellant has preferred this Appeal mainly on the two grounds (i) negligence of the claimant and (ii) quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. The injured claimant has preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injury suffered in vehicular accident, which took place on 17.08.1999, when she was travelling in ST bus bearing No. GJ-18V-3753. So far the nature of the accident is concerned, it is also undisputed fact that on such day when the claimant victim was travelling in a bus between Anand and Umreth, it is her case that bus was driven rashly and negligently in full speed, whereby near Shyamrakha cross road towards Shyamrakha, the bus collied with on coming Truck, which resulted into serious and grievous injuries on right hand of the claimant, because the claimant was holding her hand on window of the bus. The accident was so grave that in fact right hand from the elbow of the victim was cut off and thrown away on road but it was ultimately saved by the people and during treatment it was skin grafted so as to save from confirming the imputation of such parts from the body of the claimant. It is also contended by the appellant that she was serving as a teacher and getting Rs. 1870/- and that she was also doing other work. The age of the victim was 22 years at the time of the accident, she was unmarried and she has claimed Rs. 12,00,000/-. It is also contended by the appellant that she was serving as a teacher and getting Rs. 1870/- and that she was also doing other work. The age of the victim was 22 years at the time of the accident, she was unmarried and she has claimed Rs. 12,00,000/-. The Tribunal has considered oral evidence on record, by the impugned award, awarded Rs. 1,80,000/- towards future loss of income, considering the 60% disability and taking 20,000/- as notional yearly income, though the claimant was getting salary Rs. 1879/- on the date of the incident. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 30,000/- toward permanent pain, Rs. 10,000/- towards dependency charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rs. 1,83,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 6,668/- towards actual loss of income for four months. 5. Thereby, it is quite clear and certain that the Tribunal has committed error in considering Rs. 20,000/- only as notional income per annum, when the salary of the victim on the date of the accident was Rs. 1879/- thereby in fact the yearly income would be Rs. 22,548/- and in fact on such amount prospective amount is required to be added as settled legal position. 6. Similarly, while awarding Rs. 6,668/- for actual loss of income for four months, the Tribunal has considered the monthly loss of Rs. 1,667/- though the salary of the victim was Rs. 1879/-, for which documentary evidence is available on record in form of Exh. 54. Therefore, in fact when the Tribunal has erred in not awarding just and reasonable compensation by not considering the prospective income and not calculating appropriate amount based upon earning capacity. 7. Therefore, we consider the salary of the victim on the date of the accident as Rs. 1879/- and taking 50% of such amount as prospective income. The average earning capacity of the victim can be considered as Rs. 2818/-. This being injury case, there is no need to deduct anything from such amount and though we may not consider the disablement at 100%, considering the imputation, there is no reason to reduce the disablement as certified by the Doctor which is 60% for the body as a whole and therefore the loss of earning capacity per month would be Rs. 1690/-. Thereby it would be Rs. 20,280/- per annum. Even if we applied 15 suitable multiplier, total loss of earning capacity Rs. 3,04,200/-. 1690/-. Thereby it would be Rs. 20,280/- per annum. Even if we applied 15 suitable multiplier, total loss of earning capacity Rs. 3,04,200/-. In addition of such an amount for loss of earning capacity, the appellant is entitled at least Rs. 50,000/- towards permanent pain suffering, whereas as on other heads when the Tribunal has considered the actual loss, there is no need to enhance the compensation of such pecuniary loss. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to get the total amount of compensation as under: Rs. 34,200/- towards loss of earning capacity, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of permanent pain suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards attendance charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rs. 1,83,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 6,668/- towards actual loss of income for four months total Rs. 5,73,668/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to get the total amount of Rs. 5,73,668/- as total amount of compensation, whereas the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 4,29,700/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to difference being Rs. 1,43,968/- as additional compensation with 9% interest from the date of petition till its realization. 8. Whereas, the main issue is with reference to the contributory negligence of claimant herself in keeping her elbow on the window of the bus. Though it can be argued and stated that the passenger should be careful and keeping their body parts with the window or outside the window, it is settled legal position that vehicle drivers are responsible for not driving their vehicle in public place so as to avoid danger to the life of the passerby. More particularly, the driver of such public transport vehicle when driving such vehicle; there is need of separate endorsement by the licensing authority to drive such vehicle; but when it is clear settled legal position that while passing from other vehicle, the vehicle should keep proper distance so as to avoid mishap and dashing of vehicle, nevertheless, disability or injuries to passenger sitting near windows. Therefore, when overall circumstances confirms that the driver of ST bus was negligent while driving vehicle and there is evidence to prove that he was driving vehicle in full speed from starting and he has allowed the oncoming vehicle to cross on going vehicle without keeping reasonable distances so as to see the passengers are not injured, there is no substance in the Appeal on the ground of negligence. 9. 9. Learned advocate for the respondent is relying upon the decision of this Court Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Keshavlal Somnath Panchal, (1981) GLH 13, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: "Passengers who sit adjoining a window very often rest their arms on the window-still or on the window- railing in such a manner that the elbow is projected from the window to some extent. The mere fact that the arm of a passenger rests on the window-still or on a window-railing adjacent to his seat and even protrudes to some extent from the window cannot therefore by itself be considered to be an uncommon act per-se involving lack of care or prudence. The question which has to be considered in such a case is whether the protrusion of the arm from the window was to an unreasonable extent and whether the act was so obviously brought with danger that no reasonable or prudent man would consider it safe to act accordingly on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Besides the driver of a public vehicle must have such passengers in contemplation and he owes a duty of safety to such passengers which consist of driving the vehicle slowly and with care and caution, at least when another vehicle is seen approaching from the opposite direction, and while crossing such vehicle, it is his duty to so manouvre his own vehicle that not only any contact with the body of the approaching vehicle is avoided, but any contact between the oncoming vehicle and any part of the body of any passenger that might be resting on the window of the bus or projecting therefrom to a reasonable extent is also avoided. The duty in such cases consists in taking precaution to ensure that a passenger, who is sitting with his arm or any other part of his body resting on the window-sill or the window-rail or in such a way that it reasonably protrudes therefrom, does not receive any injury when the vehicle crosses an oncoming vehicle in such a manner as to leave sufficient space between the two vehicles. Similar is the duty owed by the driver of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction while crossing a passenger bus. ........ 10. Similar is the duty owed by the driver of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction while crossing a passenger bus. ........ 10. In view of above settled legal position, it cannot be held that the claimant was also negligent for the injuries received by her. In view of above, there is no substance in the appeal filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, hence the Appeal is dismissed. 11. However as discussed herein above, since the claimant is entitled to additional amount of compensation Rs. 1,43,968/- and since claimant has already preferred cross objection being No. 07 of 2011 for additional amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, the Cross Objection is partly allowed, whereby the impugned award is modified so as to confirm that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 5,73,668/- as compensation. Therefore, the impugned award is modified to that extent. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to get additional amount of compensation of Rs. 1,43,968/- with 9% from the date of petition till its realization. 12. Hence, Appeal stands dismissed, whereas Cross Objection is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.