JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. This is a claimants’ appeal calling in question to correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara (hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No. 1354 of 1994 dated 21.01.2009 whereunder claim petition filed has been allowed in part and a total compensation of Rs.17,663/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% has been awarded as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. 2. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this appeal are that original claimant-Vijaybhai Ganshyambhai Parmar while proceedings in his scooter bearing registration No. GJ-6-D-397 from his shop to house, an oncoming S.T. Bus, which was driven by the driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed behind his scooter, as a result of which, he sustained accidental injuries in the said accident. Hence, M.A.C.P. No. 1354 of 1994 came to be filed by the claimant seeking compensation. The Tribunal after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties as noticed hereinabove awarded total compensation of Rs.17,663/- under all heads. 3. Heard Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-original claimants and Mr.Devang Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 4. Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-original claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the compensation of Rs.17,663/- as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. He has submitted that the original claimant was doing the business and having agricultural land in Surandranagar District and the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of Rs.80,000/- per annum and then prospective rise of income while computing quantum of compensation to be awarded under the head of future loss of income. He has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the multiplier of 17 considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident. He has submitted that the impugned award is required to be modified. 5. Mr. Devang Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for Mr. He has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the multiplier of 17 considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident. He has submitted that the impugned award is required to be modified. 5. Mr. Devang Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and in support of his submissions, he has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the income of the claimant and compensation awarded under the different heads and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 6. I have perused the evidence on record, FIR at Exhibit 30, panchnama of place of occurrence at Exhibit 31, medical papers at Exhibit 33 to 34 and other documentary evidence. It appears that the original claimant died after seven years from the date of accident and, therefore, his legal heirs are brought on record and they have claimed compensation to that effect. As per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (3) GLH 536 , it is the case of personal injury. In the present case, the injured has sustained permanent and partial disablement and, therefore, it is evident from the judgment and award that the Tribunal has committed serious error of facts and law by awarding the amount of compensation. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. The just and proper compensation is accordingly re-determined as under: Future loss of income (Rs. 50,000/- p.a. x 45% disability = Rs. 22,500/- x 16 multiplier) Rs. 3,60,000/- + Pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities of life, special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges. Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 3,80,000/- - Towards negligence of the claimant awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 95,000/- Rs. 2,85,000/- - Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 17,663/- Total Amount Rs. 2,67,337/- Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,67,337/- requires to be awarded towards future loss of income, which is just and reasonable compensation and the same is awarded in substitution to Rs.17,663/- awarded by the Tribunal. 3,80,000/- - Towards negligence of the claimant awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 95,000/- Rs. 2,85,000/- - Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 17,663/- Total Amount Rs. 2,67,337/- Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,67,337/- requires to be awarded towards future loss of income, which is just and reasonable compensation and the same is awarded in substitution to Rs.17,663/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation of Rs.2,67,337/- is to be awarded along with the interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realization of the amount. 7. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following order: (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 1354 of 1994 dated 21.01.2009 is hereby modified and in substitution to what has been awarded by the Tribunal a sum of Rs.2,67,337/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded which shall be form the date of petition till the date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier. (iii) The apportionment and order for deposit as made by the Tribunal in paragraph no. 9 of the operative portion of the order shall hold good for the substituted award. The Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court, forthwith.