JUDGMENT AKIL KURESHI - This appeal and cross objection have filed by the insurance company and original claimant respectively to challenge an award dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (MAC) No.190 of 2016. 2.Brief facts are as under : The claimant Debajyoti Som was travelling on his bicycle on 15.02.2016 in the morning hours in Agartala town when a vehicle insured by the appellant insurance company coming from the opposite side collided with him causing serious injuries which led to amputation of the right leg of the claimant below the hip joint. According to the claimant, he was employed as an attendant in a doctor's clinic where he would work in the evening hours earning Rs.9,000/- per month. For the rest of the time of the day he would help a cable operator in his business for which he was paid Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant was aged 42 years at the time of accident as per school certificate. The medical certificate showed that the injury had left permanent disability of 90%. 3.The Claims Tribunal in the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle involved. The Tribunal accepted that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month from his employment as an attendant at a doctor's clinic. However, his further source of income was not believed. The Tribunal applied loss of earning capacity at 75%, granted 50% rise for the future income, applied a multiplier of 14 considering the age of the claimant to come to the loss of earning at Rs.17,01,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.2,45,648/- for medical expenses. Rs.33,780/- for skin grafting and Rs. 9150/- for medicine purchases. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and mental agony. The Tribunal thus awarded total compensation of Rs.20,89,578/-. This award the insurance company as well as claimant have challenged. 4.The insurance company primarily argues that the future rise in income of 50% was not in tune with the decision of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . This award the insurance company as well as claimant have challenged. 4.The insurance company primarily argues that the future rise in income of 50% was not in tune with the decision of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 5.On the other hand, the claimant argues that the Tribunal committed serious errors in (i) disbelieving further income of Rs.6,000/- by helping the cable operator's business (ii) by applying 75% as a loss of earning capacity. According to the claimant, the Tribunal correctly granted 50% rise for the future income. 6.We may first discuss the question of the current income of the injured at the time of accident. The claimant examined himself as P.W.2. In his sworn deposition he had stated that he had two sources of income one by attending to a doctor's clinic in the evening hours from 5.30 to 9 o'clock from where he would receive Rs.9,000/- per month by way of salary. He was also working for a cable operator during the day time and earning further Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant had examined Dr. Biswajit Pal as P.W.3 who stated that he had employed the claimant in his chamber as a personal and clinical assistant since January 2007. He would attend the clinic from 5.30 to 9.00 in the evening for which he was paid Rs.9,000/- per month. The doctor also produced the salary certificate. The claimant had also examined one Bishnu Das, P.W.4 who deposed that he was engaged in the business of cable line and the claimant used to work for him drawing Rs.6,000/- per month by way of salary. However, the salary certificate produced by this witness did not carry any registration number of his business and therefore the Tribunal correctly discarded his version of extra income of the claimant. The Tribunal in my opinion therefore was perfectly justified in believing that the claimant was employed by a doctor to help out his clinic from which source he was earning Rs.9,000/- every month. The doctor had entered the witness box and also produced the salary certificate. There was no serious cross-examination of this witness on these material aspects of his deposition. The doctor had entered the witness box and also produced the salary certificate. There was no serious cross-examination of this witness on these material aspects of his deposition. 7.On the basis of such income we may first assess the actual loss of income of the claimant for the period during which he would be unable to do any work at all. From his deposition we find that soon after the accident which took place on 15.02.2016 he was taken to a hospital He was treated between 15.02.2016 to 25.02.2016 as an indoor patient during which major surgeries were carried out. Thereafter also he was admitted as an indoor patient in ILS hospital on 16.04.2016 and another operation was carried out on 20.04.2016. Skin drafting was performed on 11.05.2016 and remained in hospital for such treatment till 15.05.2016. Thus first three months he remained in and out of hospitals. It can be safely assessed that for first six months after the accident he would be in no position to perform any work of gainful nature. At the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month he would be awarded Rs.54,000/- for six months of actual loss of income. 8.Coming to future loss of income, firstly the Tribunal committed an error in projecting his physical disability of 90% at 75% of the loss in earning capacity. The District Disability Medical Board had issued a certificate that the injury had resulted into 90% permanent disability of the body as a whole. The claimant had suffered an amputation of below the hip joint. He was not a young man at the time when the accident took place. He has not claimed any amount towards prosthetic leg implying that fitting an artificial leg for a lost limb was not feasible. For the rest of his life therefore he would be walking on crutches. Even if it is expected that he was doing the work of an attendant in a clinic, what has to be assessed is his drop in his earning capacity. The question therefore would be if he were to loss the present job, after his injury, what other employment can he seek. The Tribunal in view of such facts ought to have taken loss of earning capacity at 90% commensurate with the disability suffered by the claimant. 9.Now we may come to the prospective rise in income. The question therefore would be if he were to loss the present job, after his injury, what other employment can he seek. The Tribunal in view of such facts ought to have taken loss of earning capacity at 90% commensurate with the disability suffered by the claimant. 9.Now we may come to the prospective rise in income. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), in case of a self employed or a person working on a fixed salary beyond the age of 40 years may receive 25% rise for future income. The loss of future income therefore would work out as under : Current income Rs.9,000/-. 90% loss in earning capacity would bring it to Rs.8,100/- per month. 25% rise i.e. Rs.2,025/-. The prospective income therefore would work out to Rs.8,100 + 2,025 which is Rs.10,125/- per month or Rs.1,21,500/- per annum. Applying multiplier of 14 the future loss of income would come to Rs.17,01,000/-. 10.As noted, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and no separate amount is awarded for loss of future amenities of life or enjoyment of life. The record would suggest that the accident left multiple injuries on the body of the claimant. He was treated as an indoor patient for extended spells and had to undergo multiple operations. Eventually his right leg was amputated from below the hip joint. Considering all these aspects of the matter a consolidated sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded for pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life. The rest of the heads of the compensation remain unchanged. 11.In the result, the compensation awarded to the claimant would be re-worked out as under : (i) loss of actual income Rs.54000/-. (ii) loss of future income Rs.1701000/-. (iii) pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life Rs.200000/-. (iv) medical expenses Rs.245648/-. (v) for skin drafting and medicines separately awarded by the Tribunal Rs.33780/-. (vi) For medicine purchases Rs. 9150/- Total Rs.22,43,758/- The claimant would be entitled to receive additional compensation of (Rs.22,43,578 ' 20,89,578) = Rs.1,54,000/-. 12.The additional sum of Rs.1,54,000/- would be paid to the claimant with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment. 13.Appeal and cross objection are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.