JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant – original claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) dated 09.08.2005 passed in M.A.C.P. No.113 of 1998. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 06.11.1997, the claimant along with her relatives was going to darshan from Bhavnagar to Gadhada in jeep bearing registration no.GJ-07-H- 5207 and at 11.45 p.m. near Tatam Village, on account of negligency on the part of both the drivers, two vehicles dashed to each other, as a result of which, the claimant sustained serious injury. Hence, the claimant had preferred M.A.C.P. No.113 of 1998, which came to be partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.08.2005 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- as against her claim of claiming Rs.7,00,000/-. 3. Heard Mr.M. A. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr.H. G. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. Though served, nobody appears for respondents no.1 and respondent no.3 was deleted. 4. Mr.M. A. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is the case of personal injury to the claimant and during the pendency of this present appeal, original claimant was passed away and her legal heir was brought on record vide order dated 19.01.2016. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the contention and averments made by the appellant – claimant in its true and perspective spirit for getting compensation. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the income of the claimant as at the time of accident, the claimant was running a beauty parlour and she was earning extra income from the occasion of marriages and festival and other occasions and the Tribunal has considered very meager amount i.e. Rs.1500/- p.m. as a matter of fact the claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. after deducting salary of her colleague and earning Rs.18,000/- extra from other occasion. He has submitted that the claimant sustained grievous and multiple injuries and her right hand being amputed and for this reason, her income became stopped as her business depends on hands and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of income of Rs.1,50,000/-. He has submitted that the claimant sustained grievous and multiple injuries and her right hand being amputed and for this reason, her income became stopped as her business depends on hands and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of income of Rs.1,50,000/-. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the medical expenses i.e. all charges including medical bills etc. and considered only Rs.5,000/- and, therefore, to what extent it is possible for one in case of amputation and instead of considering at least Rs.1,00,000/-, however, the Tribunal has given only Rs.5,000/- under the said head. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospective income of the appellant as she has lost her right hand in the accident and therefore the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that after amputation the appellant became unemployed. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- under the heads of special diet and attendant charges, but the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of special diet and Rs.7,000/- under the head of attendant charges. He has relied upon the two decisions of this Court in the case of (1) Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel since Decd. Through Heirs Vs. Joseph Francis Mewan and another rendered in First Appeal No. 1528 of 2009 dated 15.12.2015 and (2) Mahendrabhai Chimanbhai Patel Vs. Bhikhabhai Patanwadiya and others rendered in First Appeal No.324 of 2008 dated 08.05.2013. 5. Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr.H. G. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 have submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. They both have prayed for dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the award. 6. In the case of Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel (supra), this Court has held in paragraphs no.2 and 3 as under:- “2. This question came-up before learned Single Judge of this Court, who by detailed referral order dated 18.11.2013, referred following question for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court. “37. ... ... ... 6. In the case of Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel (supra), this Court has held in paragraphs no.2 and 3 as under:- “2. This question came-up before learned Single Judge of this Court, who by detailed referral order dated 18.11.2013, referred following question for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court. “37. ... ... ... Whether the view taken by the learned Single Judges of this court in the decisions referred to above as well as the decision of the Division Bench in the case of SURPAL SINGH L. GOHIL v. R.M. SAVALIA [supra], lay down the correct proposition of law regarding applicability of section 306 of the Succession Act to a claim-application under section 166 of the MV Act where the claim for compensation is filed for the personal injuries caused to the claimant and during the pendency of the petition, he died a natural death.” 3. The Division Bench disposed of the reference by a judgement dated 14.11.2014 as under: “10.00 Considering the aforesaid decision of the the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surpal Singh Ladhubha Gohil (supra); decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jenabai Widow of Abdul Karim Musa (supra) and in the case of Amrishkumar Vinodbhai (supra); and aforesaid two decisions of the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, we are of the opinion that maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” on which section 306 of the Indian Evidence Act is based cannot have an applicability in all actions even in an case of personal injuries where damages flows from the head or under the head of loss to the estate. Therefore, even after the death of the injured claimant, claim petition does not abate and right to sue survive to his heirs and legal representatives in so far as loss to the estate is concerned, which would include personal expenses incurred on the treatment and other claim related to loss to the estate. Under the circumstances, the issue referred to the Division Bench is answered accordingly. Consequently, it is held that no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in permitting the heirs to be brought on record of the claim petition and permitting the heirs of the injured claimant who died subsequently to proceed further with the claim petition. Under the circumstances, the issue referred to the Division Bench is answered accordingly. Consequently, it is held that no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in permitting the heirs to be brought on record of the claim petition and permitting the heirs of the injured claimant who died subsequently to proceed further with the claim petition. However, the claim petition and even appeal for enhancement would be confine to the claim for the loss to the estate as observed hereinabove. Now, the matter will be placed before the learned Single Judge to proceed further with the appeal and to consider the claim accordingly in accordance with law and on merits and to the aforesaid extent, as observed hereinabove.” 7. In the case of Mahendrabhai Chimanbhai Patel (supra), this Court has held in paragraphs no.4, 7 and 8 as under:- 4. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the appellants are before this Court claiming that the appellants are entitled to get compensation towards pain, shock and suffering in view of the decision rendered in the case of Surpal Singh Ladhubha Gohil versus Raliyatbahen Mohanbhai Savlia and Ors. reported in 2009(2)G.L.H. 217. 7. As such, the appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Surpal Singh(Supra). The observation made by the learned Tribunal to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get compensation only for the loss of estate stands displaced in view of the decision of the Hon'ble division bench of this Court and more particularly, in view of observation made in Paras 11 to 13 which read as under:- “11. We are of the view that strict application of the maxim “actio personalis mortiur cum persons” cannot be imported to defeat the purpose and object of a social welfare legislation like Motor Vehicles Act, to the advantages of a wrong doer. Once the status of the claimants as legal heirs or legal representatives are conceded and acknowledged to deny benefit of compensation to them, on the ground that injury was personal to the claimant, will be giving a premium to the wrong committed, which in our view would defeat the very purpose and object of the legislation. The question as to whether injury was personal or otherwise is of no significance so far as the wrong doer is concerned and he is obliged to make good the loss sustained by the injured. The question as to whether injury was personal or otherwise is of no significance so far as the wrong doer is concerned and he is obliged to make good the loss sustained by the injured. Legal heirs and legal representatives would have also suffered considerable mental pain and agony due to the accident caused to their kith and kin. Possibly they might have looked after their dear ones in different circumstances, which cannot be measurable in monetary terms. We are therefore in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) that even after death of the injured, the claim petition does not abate and right to sue survives to his heirs and legal representatives. 12. We however find it difficult to accept the principle laid down by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Calcutta Insurance Ltd. v. Bhupinder Singh (Supra) as well as the Division Bench of Madras High Court in C.P.Kandaswamy and ors. v. Mariappa Stores and ors(supra) literally applying the principal that personal action dies with the person, forgetting the spirit and object to the legislation. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Naseehan v. Surendra Pal-AIR 1996 (Raj.), wherein the Court has taken the view that claim regarding damages on account of pains, sufferings and mental agony to the deceased will not survive, but the claim regarding loss to the property will survive and permitted legal heirs of the deceased claimants to continue with the proceedings karnataka High Court in General manager, karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. Peerappa Prasappa Sangolli and ors.- AIR 1979 (Kar.) 154 has taken the view that legal representative has a rightful claim when the injured person in the accident dies before or after filing the petition. 13. We are of the view that even for the damages caused on account of pain, suffering and mental agony and also loss to the property, the claimants have a stake due to the status they hold is “legal heirs/legal representatives”, the benefit which otherwise would ensure to the wrong doer. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed.” 8. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed.” 8. So, keeping in mind the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, it appears that learned Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount towards pain, shock and suffering. So, the amount awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced. So, looking to the prolonged treatment and sufferings due to the injuries, this is a fit case to award a sum of Rs.50,000/= towards pain, shock & suffering. Thus, in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.50,000/= under the head of pain, shock and suffering and accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with a direction to the opponents to pay jointly and severely additional sum of Rs.50,000/= to the appellants with 9% interest from the date of application till its actual payment within three months from today. 8. While determining the loss of income, the Court must have to keep in mind the principles enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Ravindranath alias R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another, (2013) 12 SCC 455 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs no.12, 15 and 16 as under:- 12. It is settled law that compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the following heads: Pecuniary damages (special damages) 12.1 (I) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. 12.2 (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability; 12.3 (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) 12.4 (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. 12.5 (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). 12.6 (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 12.7 In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under Heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) 12.4 (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. 12.5 (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). 12.6 (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 12.7 In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under Heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 12.8 It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the Heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 15. In Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, 2011 13 SCC 236 , this Court observed: (SCC p.239, paras 7-8) “7. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant’s earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. 8. The term ‘disability’, as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case.” 16. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case.” 16. In Kavita v. Deepak, 2012 8 SCC 604 , the Court referred to earlier precedents and held: (SCC p. 613, para 19) “19. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice 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 are distinct and do not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses.” 9. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and record and proceedings and perused the materials placed on record. I have considered the evidence led by both the parties and perused the depositions of the witnesses. In the present case, the deceased claimant was running business of beauty parlour and she was earning Rs.10,000/- per annum. It appears from the record that to show the income from the beauty parlour, no documentary evidence was produced except certificate at Exhibit 59 about completion of the beauty parlour course undertaken by the original claimant. Even the deceased claimant was running beauty parlour in the name and style of “Swapna Beauty Parlour”, which was registered in Khambhat Municipality. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is no any cogent and convincing evidence was produced, therefore, considered the income of deceased as Rs.3000/-. Even the deceased claimant was running beauty parlour in the name and style of “Swapna Beauty Parlour”, which was registered in Khambhat Municipality. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is no any cogent and convincing evidence was produced, therefore, considered the income of deceased as Rs.3000/-. The deceased was sustained permanent disablement in nature and her hand was amputed and, therefore, she has prayed for 100% disability as she was carrying the work of beauty parlour and for that purpose, the hands are most important organ to carry out the such business and, therefore, considering the injury and disablement and facts of the case, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned award is to be substituted by amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The compensation is required to be redetermined as under:- Rs. 3000 p.m. x 12 = Rs. 36000 x 37% permanent disablement = 13320 x 15 multiplier = 1,99,800/- i.e. round amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. 9. Considering overall facts of the case, I proceed to pass the following order. (i) The appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation is hereby enhanced to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. The insurance company is directed to deposit enhanced amount with running interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till realization of the amount expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ii) So far as liability of both the insurance companies i.e. respondents no.2 and 4 is concerned, the same shall remain unaltered. (iii) The apportionment and order of awarded amount of compensation is concerned, the appellant is a sole legal heir of the deceased claimant and, therefore, 30% of the enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the appellant by way of issuing account payee cheque and remaining 70% of the enhanced amount of compensation to be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellant as per his choice in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three months and the appellant is entitled to get the accrued interest on the Fixed Deposit on quarterly. (iv) The Court fees on enhanced compensation amount to be paid before the Tribunal at the time of disbursement and withdrawal of the amount. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.