JUDGMENT : B.N. KARIA, J. 1. All these four appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 11.11.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux.), Patan (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) Nos. 3855 of 2002 to 3858 of 2002 (Old Case Nos. 555 to 558 of 2000). The present appellant who is the original opponent No. 3 before the Tribunal has challenged the impugned judgment and award passed in the aforesaid claim petition. 2. Short facts of the present case may be referred as under: 2.1 That, the motor vehicle accident in question took place between two vehicles viz. trailer bearing registration No. RP-01G-1965 and maruti car bearing registration No. GJ-1-AP- 2742 on 02.04.2000 at about 3:30 a.m. on Patan-Abu road on national highway near village: Iqbalgadh within the local jurisdiction of Amirgadh Police Station. In the said accident, one person lost his life and others sustained bodily injuries and disability. The MACP No. 3855 of 2002 was preferred by the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Amrishbhai Soni praying to award compensation of Rs. 20 lakh, whereas, MACP No. 3856 of 2002 was preferred by Bipinbhai Prahladbhai Soni claiming compensation of Rs. 4 lakh, MACP No. 3857 of 2002 was preferred by Anilkumar Prahladbhai Soni claiming compensation of Rs. 6 lakh and in MACP No. 3858 of 2002, the petitioner had claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. As per the averments made in the respective petitions, on 02.04.2000 at about 1:00 a.m. deceased Amrishbhai and others started their journey in aforesaid maruti car from Patan to Ranuja. At about 3:30 a.m. when their maruti car reached at Iqbalgadh, between Palanpur and Abu road, at that time, aforesaid trailer was parked by the opponent No. 1 and was in stationary condition on the national highway. The maruti car wherein the injured were sitting, dashed with the said trailer from backside as the said trailer was parked in negligent manner without showing any signal or parking light. The passengers who were travelling in the maruti car sustained grievous injuries on their persons and one of them died on the spot. The maruti car wherein the injured were sitting, dashed with the said trailer from backside as the said trailer was parked in negligent manner without showing any signal or parking light. The passengers who were travelling in the maruti car sustained grievous injuries on their persons and one of them died on the spot. As per the averments made in the claim petitions, the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the opponent No. 1, the trailer in question which was owned by the opponent No. 2 and insured with the opponent No. 3 and all of them were responsible for paying the compensation to the claimants. However, on safer side, the claimants had also joined the driver, owner and the insurance company of the maruti car. It was further averred in the claim petition that the driver of the maruti car was driving the vehicle with moderate speed and on the correct side of the road at the time of accident but as the trailer was lying in stationary condition on the midst of the national highway without showing any signal or reflector or putting any signboard on the road, the driver of the trailer was solely responsible for causing the accident. 2.2 Before the Tribunal, the opponents were duly served with the notice. Except opponent Nos. 3 and 6, nobody appeared, personally or through their legal representative and therefore, the matters were proceeded ex parte against the rest of the opponents as undefended against them. At the instance of the claimants, all the matters were consolidated and decided together as per order passed below Exh.37. 2.3 The present appellant filed its written statement before the Tribunal denying all the contents except specifically admitted contending that there was no legal cause of action for filing the claim petitions against the opponent-insurance company. It was specifically stated that the trailer in question was parked on the side of the road with red signal and having signal reflecting on the backside of the said trailer and it was not parked on the midst of the road as stated by the claimants and the maruti car came rashly and negligently and dashed with the parked trailer from its rear side and thereby, the accident took place and maruti car was solely liable for the alleged accident. So far as the income part, age, expenses incurred in medical treatment, compensation on the counts of special diet, attendant, are concerned, they were denied as alleged by the claimants in their respective petitions. Eventually, it was requested to dismiss the claim petitions. 2.4 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. filed its written statement before the Tribunal denying that on 02.04.2000 at about 3:30 a.m. at Iqbalgadh on Palanpur-Abu Road, the accident in question had taken place and the maruti car was involved in the accident. It was denied that the opponent No. 4 was the driver, opponent No. 5 was the owner and the opponent No. 6 was the insurance company of the said maruti car at the time of accident. Regarding injuries and death of deceased Amrishbhai in the alleged accident, the same were not admitted. The income of the deceased/injured, expenses incurred by them on account of medical treatment, suffering of pain, shock and agony, funeral expenses, attendant charges or loss of love and affections, were denied by this opponent. It was not admitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was travelling in the maruti car and going towards Ranuja from Patan. That, the claimants have only alleged rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the trailer in causing the accident and hence, only opponent Nos. 1 to 3 were liable to pay the compensation. It was further submitted that this opponent was not liable to pay any compensation jointly and severally as the vehicle used against the terms and conditions of the policy. That, the claim was not legal and therefore, it was requested to dismiss the claim petitions. 2.5 The learned Tribunal, after recording the evidence led before it, was pleased to partly allow all the claim petitions against the opponent Nos. 1 to 3 and dismissed the claim petitions against the opponent Nos. 4 to 6. The opponents were directed to pay the compensation to the claimants with running interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of each petition within one month from the date of award i.e. 11.11.2005. The present appellant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, has preferred these appeals. 3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel Mr. Tolia for the respondents- original claimants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Mr. The present appellant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, has preferred these appeals. 3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel Mr. Tolia for the respondents- original claimants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Mr. Vicky Mehta for the respondent No. 5. 3.1 It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal holding liability of the present insurance company to indemnify the driver of the trailer was completely wrong and against the evidence on record. It was further submitted that as per the panchnama produced on record, the width of the road was 22 ft. and there was sufficient space available with the driver of the maruti car to drive his car on the right side of the road leaving the space of trailer parked in the stationary position. That, the maruti car dashed with the said trailer from its backside and the said trailer was parked on the correct side of the road. There was no negligence of the driver of the trailer in parking the said vehicle on the correct side of the road. That, proper care was taken by the driver of the trailer, however, the driver of the maruti car did not take precaution for avoiding the accident. That, there was no negligence of the driver of the trailer in causing the accident, however, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in holding the liability of the driver of the trailer in causing the accident. It was never the case of the claimants that the driver of the maruti car drove his vehicle in a moderate speed or on the correct side of the road. That, maruti car dashed with the back portion of the trailer as it is clearly revealed from the panchnama. The maruti car was heavily damaged in the front portion and there was more severe damage caused to the back portion of the trailer. That, learned Tribunal has not considered the oral as well as documentary evidence in proper perspective or appreciated the same properly and therefore, it requires to be modified by this Court. The maruti car was heavily damaged in the front portion and there was more severe damage caused to the back portion of the trailer. That, learned Tribunal has not considered the oral as well as documentary evidence in proper perspective or appreciated the same properly and therefore, it requires to be modified by this Court. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on decisions in the case of Amarsi Jugabhai and Others vs. Vijayaben Hemantlal Dhulia and Others, 1996 (1) GLH 1007 and in the case of Raj Rani and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 654 . 3.2 It is further submitted that in MACP No. 3856 to 3858 of 2002, the Tribunal has committed a grave mistake in considering the future prospective income of the injured. That, in fact, no grievous injuries were sustained by any of the claimants of the aforesaid petitions nor have they produced any evidence showing any functional disability. That, considering future prospective income without assigning any reasons by the Tribunal and in absence of any cogent evidence, was prima facie illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. Hence, it was requested by the learned counsel for the appellant to modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal holding the liability of the driver of the trailer and to indemnify by the present appellant-insurance company. 4. From the other side, learned counsel Mr. Tolia for the original claimants submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects of not taking necessary precautions by the driver of the trailer. That, this motor vehicle was parked in the midst of the road by the driver of the trailer. That, there was clear breach of rules 146 and 213 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. That, there was no sufficient light or reflector on the backside of the trailer. No precaution was taken by the driver of the trailer covering the area or putting any hindrance at the time of accident when it was parked in the midst of the road. That, this accident had occurred at about 3:30 a.m. in the early morning. That, the driver of the trailer was clearly failed to perform his duty of reflecting the reflectors and showing lamps backside of the trailer. That, this accident had occurred at about 3:30 a.m. in the early morning. That, the driver of the trailer was clearly failed to perform his duty of reflecting the reflectors and showing lamps backside of the trailer. That, the panchnama of the scene of offence also supports that the driver of the maruti car was on correct side of the road. That, the trailer was lying in the midst of the road in a dark without any signals, reflectors or lights. It was further submitted that it was complete negligence on the part of the driver of the trailer in causing the accident. That, the driver of the trailer was solely responsible for the accident and there is no contributory negligence of the deceased driver of the maruti car. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon decisions in the cases of Saudagarsing Chhajusing and Others vs. Jashodaben and Another, 1986 ACJ 1070, Premlata Nilamchand Sharma and Others vs. Hirabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Others, 1982 GLH 582 and National Insurance Co. vs. Varshaben Bharatbhai Gohil, 2012 (0) GLHEL-HC 228321 : 2013 (1) GLR 405 . 4.1 It was further submitted that there was clear breach of Section 81 of the MV Act. The learned counsel has further argued that the driver of the trailer was never examined before the Tribunal. That, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the trailer. That, sufficient evidence was available with the Tribunal for holding liability of the driver of the trailer in causing the accident and the Tribunal has committed no error in arriving at the conclusion and holding the liability of the present appellant to indemnify the driver of the trailer. Hence, it was requested by the learned counsel for the claimants to dismiss the appeals. 5. Mr. Mazmudar, learned counsel for New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that it was complete negligence of the driver of the trailer in causing the accident. It was further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the maruti car, who drove his vehicle in moderate speed and on correct side of the road. It was further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the maruti car, who drove his vehicle in moderate speed and on correct side of the road. He invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit of examination-in-chief Exh.52 of Shri Anilbhai and submitted that from the cross-examination of this claimant, it can be said that the maruti car has taken necessary precautions to avoid the accident. The Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) as there was no negligence of the driver of the maruti car. Hence, it was requested by the learned counsel for this insurance company to dismiss the appeals and confirm the impugned judgment and award. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 in First Appeal No. 2087 of 2006 submitted that the trailer was in stationary condition. That, the findings of the Tribunal are not based on documentary evidence and are contrary to the evidence on record. That, holding liability of the driver of the trailer was completely wrong. It was, hence, requested to pass necessary order in the interest of justice. 7. Having considered the facts of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties as well as the record of the Tribunal, it appears that one Bharatbhai Maneklal Soni, who happens to be the relative of the injured had lodged the complaint, produced vide Exh.39 in respect of the accident before the police on 02.04.2000. From the contents averred in the complaint, it appears that he was not present at the time of accident. He was informed on telephone by his brother Rajendra about this accident. As per his information, the accident was occurred between two vehicles i.e. trailer and the maruti car wherein, Amrishbhai had died and Bipinbhai and other persons had received grievous injuries. The panchnama of place of accident, Exh.40 Was necessary to determine the liability of the drivers involved in the accident. The place of accident was shown in the sim of village: Iqbalgadh on national highway at western side edge of southern side road. The width of the road was 22 ft. east to west. On the western side of the road, one trailer towards northern side was found having registration No. RJ-01G-1965 having 14 wheels. On the backside of the said trailer, one maruti car was lying dashed. The width of the road was 22 ft. east to west. On the western side of the road, one trailer towards northern side was found having registration No. RJ-01G-1965 having 14 wheels. On the backside of the said trailer, one maruti car was lying dashed. Front portion of the maruti car, up to the driving seat, was below the trailer. The number of the maruti car was found as GJ-1-AP-2742. It appears from the panchnama that left side wheel of the trailer was found 1 ft. away on eastern side road from the edge of west side of the road. Engine and front portion of the maruti car was dashed with the trailer and therefore, the pieces of glass were found on the road in scattered position. The maruti car was heavily damaged to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Claimant Bipinbhai, Anilbhai and Anvarbhai were examined before the Tribunal as they had filed their affidavits in respect of examination-in-chief vide Exhs.51, 52 and 53. All of them have stated on oath before the Tribunal that the accident had taken place between Palanpur to Abu road near Iqbalgadh where, one trailer was parked in the midst of the road by the original opponent No. 1 without showing any signals or marking any signs with parking lights. At about 3:30 a.m. in the early morning, due to dazzling of the lights of the motor vehicles coming from the opposite direction, reflected in the eyes of maruti car driver, the maruti car dashed with the trailer parked in the midst of the road. Anilbhai Soni, Exh.52, in his cross-examination has denied that trailer was lying on the correct side of the road and parking lights and signals were reflected of the trailer. He has further admitted that he was sitting in the backside in the maruti car and was awaking but he had not seen the trailer before the accident. On the same way, Anvarbhai, Exh.53, in his cross-examination has also supported the previous witness Anilbhai denying that this accident had occurred on account of his negligence. He has also denied that the trailer was lying on correct side of the road and side signals and parking lights were reflected of the trailer. Admittedly, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the driver of the trailer. He has also denied that the trailer was lying on correct side of the road and side signals and parking lights were reflected of the trailer. Admittedly, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the driver of the trailer. The this Court, in the decision in the case of Premlata Nilamchand Sharma and Others (supra) has referred Rules 146 and 213 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1959, which read as under: “146. Lamps: (1) Save as hereinafter provided, every motor vehicle while in a public place during the period between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise and at any other time when there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the road at a distance of 150 metres ahed, shall carry the following lamps (hereinafter referred to as “obligatory front lamps”): Provided that when a motor vehicle is drawing another vehicle or vehicles and the distance between such vehicles does not exceed 1.5 metres it shall not subject to any other provision of these rules be necessary for the drawn vehicles to carry obligatory front lamps or for any save the last drawn vehicle to carry a rear lamp or a lamp illuminative the rear registration mark. (Emphasis supplied) Sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 146 run as under: (5) The rear lamp shall be fixed either on the centre line of the vehicle or to the right hand side and, save in the case of a transport vehicle, at a height of not more than one metre from the ground. In the case of a transport vehicle the rear light may be fixed at such level as may be necessary to illuminate the registration mark. (6) Where a trailer is being drawn by a motor vehicle, other than the drawn part of an articulated vehicle, a lamp of as nearly as possible the same size and power as the rear lamp and showing a red light to the rear shall be affixed to the trailer vertically above or below the rear lamp at a distance of not less than fifty centimetres or more than one metre from the rear lamp. xxx xxx xxx 213. xxx xxx xxx 213. Fitment of reflectors (1) - Every transport vehicle other than motor cab shall be fitted with: (a) two rear red reflectors having diameter of not less than 76 milimetres each across rafters on both the sides of the body. (b) one green reflector having a diameter of not less than 76 millimeters on the front side of the load body at the extreme right and facing to the front, at a height between 1.2 to 1.5 metres from the ground level. (2) The reflectors referred to in sub-rule (1) shall, while the vehicle is in a public place during the period between half an hour after sun-set and half an hour before sun-rise and at any other time when there is no sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the road at a distance of 160 metres be kept un-obscured and clean. 7.1 Here, if we again consider the panchnama of place of accident, it appears that there was no presence of any red light, reflector or signals of the trailer or any precautions were taken covering the area of stationary trailer. These statutory rules are framed for the safety of traffic and violation of these rules would certainly endanger the lives as well as safety of the property. The aforesaid rules cannot be violated very lightly. These rules are framed with a purpose for those, who use the vehicles on the road and must give due regard to that and must comply them. The Tribunal has rightly considered complete negligence on the part of the driver of the trailer as he had committed breach of Rules 146 and 213 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1959. In another decision in the Saudagarsing Chhajusing and Others (supra), there was collision between the stationary truck trailer and the motorcycle. The truck trailer was parked on national highway when it was dark without any indication, reflector or parking lights. One motorcyclist dazzled by the lights of another truck coming from the opposite direction collided with the stationary truck trailer. It was contended that motorcycle was driven without proper look out as it was collided with a stationary vehicle and there was contributory negligence of the motorcyclist. One motorcyclist dazzled by the lights of another truck coming from the opposite direction collided with the stationary truck trailer. It was contended that motorcycle was driven without proper look out as it was collided with a stationary vehicle and there was contributory negligence of the motorcyclist. It was held that the truck driver was negligent in parking his vehicle without putting any signal to indicate its presence and was certainly responsible for the accident and there was no contributory negligence of the motorcyclist. Here also, as we have seen from the panchnama and found that there were no indication, reflector or parking lights, in clear breach of Rules 146 and 213 of the Motor Vehicle Rules as discussed, the driver of the trailer was solely responsible for the accident and hence, no question of considering any contributory negligence of the maruti car driver would arise. In the decision in the case of Varshaben Bharatbhai Gohil (supra), the motor accident between car and stationary truck on highway had occurred. There was no reflector, light or indicator during night hours put on the stationary truck. This Court was pleased held that it is very difficult to attribute negligence on the part of the driver dashing his vehicle into a parked vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Amarsi Jugabhai and Others (supra). As per the facts of that case, a person was injured as a result of combined negligence of two drivers of colliding vehicles. It was a case of injury by composite negligence. In the cited case, concept of tort-feasor was explained. In the instant case, there is no question of considering the law of joint tort-feasor because the accident was occurred solely on account of negligence of the driver of the trailer. In another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Raj Rani and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in para 17 and 18 as under: “17. So far as the issue of “contributory negligence” is concerned, we may notice that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the total compensation on the ground that deceased had contributed to the accident. The same, we find, has been upheld by the High Court. So far as the issue of “contributory negligence” is concerned, we may notice that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the total compensation on the ground that deceased had contributed to the accident. The same, we find, has been upheld by the High Court. This Court in Usha Rajkhowa vs. Paramount Industries discussed the issued of contributory negligence noticing, inter alia, earlier decision on the same topic. It was held that: (SCC p. 75, para 20) “20. The question of contributory negligence on the part of the driver in case of collision was considered by this Court in Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri vs. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak. That was also a case of collision between a car and a truck. It was observed in SCC p. 458 para 8: 8.....The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression “contributory negligence” it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an “author of his own wrong.” 18. The principle of 50:50 in cases of contributory negligence has been discussed and applied in many cases before this Court. In Krishna Vishweshwar Hede vs. Karnataka SRTC this Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal assessing the ratio of liability at 50:50 in view of the fact that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and fixed the responsibility for the accident in the ratio of 50:50 on the driver of the bus and the appellant.” 7.2 A decision would always depend upon the facts of different cases and would require to be evaluated from the same. In the present case, as discussed above, it is proved that at dark night i.e. at about 3:30 a.m. on national highway, where there was no light and the trailer having 14 wheels was parked without any parking lights with no reflectors, on the midst of the road and due to that, the accident had occurred. In the present case, as discussed above, it is proved that at dark night i.e. at about 3:30 a.m. on national highway, where there was no light and the trailer having 14 wheels was parked without any parking lights with no reflectors, on the midst of the road and due to that, the accident had occurred. If assuming that the driver of the maruti car was driving his vehicle slightly fast, yet, it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on his part because on a national highway and that too, in night hours, it cannot be expected that a vehicle should be driven at a slow speed. Further, it cannot be expected that the driver of a vehicle should visualize that there may be some stationary vehicle which could not be seen from a distance of few paces and therefore, he should drive the vehicle slowly. Section 81 of the MV Act provides that no person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to remain at rest on any road in such a position or in such a condition or in such a circumstances as to cause or to be likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the road. From the facts of the case, the decision relied by the learned counsel for the appellant could not assist the appellant. 7.3 It appears from the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No. 3856 of 2002 that monthly income of the claimant was considered at Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- totaling to Rs. 15,000/- divided by 02 which comes to Rs. 7,500/-. The Tribunal has considered the future prospective income in this case. No reasons were given by the Tribunal while considering the future prospective income in the case. Bipinbhai Soni has filed affidavit vide Exh.51. As per his statement, after the accident, he was treated in Rajashthan Hospital at Ahmedabad and was indoor patient for 20 days. On account of multiple fractures on his jaw, certain operations were carried out and 10 teeth were removed. His face was disfigured and his voice was disturbed and there is every possibility of damaging his stomach. He had received permanent disablement. Vide Exh.66, he has produced his transfer form from CMO, Patan to CMO, Ahmedabad showing fracture of Mandible. On account of multiple fractures on his jaw, certain operations were carried out and 10 teeth were removed. His face was disfigured and his voice was disturbed and there is every possibility of damaging his stomach. He had received permanent disablement. Vide Exh.66, he has produced his transfer form from CMO, Patan to CMO, Ahmedabad showing fracture of Mandible. This petitioner has produced certain bills and vouchers to prove that huge amount was incurred by him in getting the treatment. He has not examined any doctor who treated him in the Rajasthan Hospital at Ahmedabad nor has produced any documentary evidence to show his grievous injuries as stated by him in his examination-in-chief. The transfer form, Exh.66 only shows Mandible fracture with marking question. Dr. Kirit D. Patel has issued Disability Certificate on 11.03.2005 after 05 years from the date of accident considering his disability at 22% permanent partial disfigurement and disability for face region only. This was reduced to 20% by passing consent. If we consider disability of 20% on account of disfigurement that would not certainly affect the functional disability of the applicant and therefore, considering the future prospective income by the Tribunal in the present case was completely erroneous and the Tribunal has ignored as well as overlooked the aspect of functional disability. Applicant Bipinbhai Soni shall be entitled to claim Rs. 5,000/- divided by 20% and multiplied by 12 and further multiplied by 15 which would come to Rs. 1,80,000/- only by way of compensation. 7.4 In another case i.e. MACP No. 3857 of 2002 the Tribunal has considered annual income of this applicant of Rs. 70,000/- + Rs. 1,40,000/- prospective income totaling to Rs. 2,10,000/-. This applicant-Anilbhai has filed his affidavit vide Exh.52 before the Tribunal. As per his statement, after the accident he was shifted to Palanpur Civil Hospital and thereafter, for further treatment was shifted to Patan. In his right leg knee iron rod was inserted and operation was performed. As he received a fracture below the knee of his right leg, plaster was applied. He had received another fracture on his left hand below wrist. He was indoor patient for a period of 20 days and has received permanent disablement. In his right leg knee iron rod was inserted and operation was performed. As he received a fracture below the knee of his right leg, plaster was applied. He had received another fracture on his left hand below wrist. He was indoor patient for a period of 20 days and has received permanent disablement. Now, if we consider the record of the Tribunal, it transpires that not a single document was produced by this applicant showing that he was treated in civil hospital at Palanpur or at Patan or any operation on his right leg was performed applying plaster to him. No, bills or vouchers were of treatment expenses were produced by this applicant. The certificate of disability issued by Dr. Vimal Gandhi dated 08.03.2005 was produced at Exh.111 showing injuries received by him on 02.04.2000. Admittedly, this certificate was issued after five years approximately and whatever complain was made by the applicant before the doctor was written by him in his certificate. The doctor has considered permanent partial disability as 40%. With the consent of both the parties, this disability was reduced to 20% body as a whole. If we continue to consider 20% disability body as a whole suffered by the applicant without any evidence of any injury as stated by this applicant in Exh.52, his examination-in-chief affidavit, the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the prospective income of this applicant. This Court is of the view that only income of Rs. 70,000/- would be considered by this Court and not the prospective income. If we consider the income of Rs. 70,000/- divided by 20% and multiplied by 17, this applicant would be entitled to Rs. 2,38,000/- instead of Rs. 4,47,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 7.5 If we come to next MACP No. 3858 of 2002, the Tribunal has considered the income of this applicant at Rs. 3,000/- per month and future prospective income of Rs. 6,000/- totalling to Rs. 9,000/- which if divided by 2, it comes to Rs. 4,500/- only. Here also, as the Tribunal has considered the future prospective income of this applicant let us examine the injuries received by this applicant. The applicant has filed his affidavit at Exh.53 stating that after the accident, he was immediately taken to civil hospital, Palanpur and thereafter, for further treatment at Patan at the hospital of Dr. Babubhai Patel, Orthopedic Surgeon. Here also, as the Tribunal has considered the future prospective income of this applicant let us examine the injuries received by this applicant. The applicant has filed his affidavit at Exh.53 stating that after the accident, he was immediately taken to civil hospital, Palanpur and thereafter, for further treatment at Patan at the hospital of Dr. Babubhai Patel, Orthopedic Surgeon. It is further stated that for a period of 10 days, he was treated as an indoor patient. He had a fracture on his left leg and an injury to his right leg also. His left ear was also injured and therefore, stitches were taken as well as on his left eye also. He had suffered 40% functional disability. Again, if we consider the record of the Tribunal, it transpires that not a single document from civil hospital, Palanpur or Patan hospital of Dr. Babubhai Patel was produced. Without any record of treatment it would be difficult to accept his version straightway. He has produced only Disability Certificate issued by Dr. Vimal Gandhi, Exh.112 dated 08.03.2005, issued after four years of date of accident. Here also, the complain of the applicant was narrated before the doctor and was written in the certificate. Disability of 15% was assessed by the doctor. He was not examined as a witness by this applicant. With the consent of the parties, his disability was reduced to the extent of 7.5% body as a whole and therefore, same would be considered by this Court without going into merits of the certificate. If we consider the income of Rs. 3,000/- per month of this applicant, deducting the prospective income, divided by 7.5% multiplied by 12 and further multiplied by 17, it would come to Rs. 45,900/- only instead of Rs. 1,20,000/- awarded to this applicant by the Tribunal. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal shall be modified and the applicant of MACP No. 3856 of 2002 would get Rs. 1,80,000/- in MACP No. 3857 of 2002, the applicant would get Rs. 2,38,000/- and in MACP No. 3858 of 2002, the applicant would get Rs. 45,900/- only, together with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Thus, in view of the above observations and discussion, First Appeal No. 2087 of 2006 fails and is dismissed accordingly. The First Appeal Nos. 2088 of 2006, 2089 of 2006 and 2090 of 2006 are partly allowed to the extent aforesaid. 45,900/- only, together with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Thus, in view of the above observations and discussion, First Appeal No. 2087 of 2006 fails and is dismissed accordingly. The First Appeal Nos. 2088 of 2006, 2089 of 2006 and 2090 of 2006 are partly allowed to the extent aforesaid. R&P be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. 8.1 It is clarified that amount, if any, withdrawn by the claimants from the Tribunal out of the amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company, the same shall not be refunded by the claimants to the appellant, but, the appellant shall be at liberty to recover the said amount along with interest accrued thereon from the insured following due procedure of law.