ORDER : 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the M.V. Act” for short), in which, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 10.07.20219 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surat, passed in MACP No.125 of 2007 to a limited extent i.e. for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hiren M. Modi appearing for the appellant – original claimant and learned advocate Ms.Kirti S. Pathak for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under: 3.1 On 08.01.2007, at about 5:30 PM, the claimant was going towards Piplod by driving motorcycle on left side of the road in slow speed and when he reached near Kirti Lazer Beauty, on Piplod – Dumas Road, at that time, respondent No.1 came from behind driving Hyundai Gets car No.GJ-5-CF-83 in full speed, in rash and negligent manner, endangering the human life and dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant and, therefore, the claimant fell down from the motorcycle and sustained serious injuries. The claimant, therefore, has filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal and the respondent No.3 Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.25/A. 3.2 The Claims Tribunal, after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, passed the judgment and award dated 10.07.2018 awarding compensation of Rs.1,33,600/- with proportionate cost and with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The appellant, therefore, has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Modi appearing for the appellant – claimant has contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the claimant at Rs.29,400/- per month. However, at the same time, the Tribunal has committed an error while not awarding the compensation under the head of future loss of income. It is submitted that as per the various decisions rendered by this Court, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 5 considering the disability sustained by the claimant. It is also submitted that under the head of pain, shock and suffering as well as under the head of special diet, attendant charges, the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount and, therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal be modified by enhancing the amount of compensation. It is also submitted that under the head of pain, shock and suffering as well as under the head of special diet, attendant charges, the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount and, therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal be modified by enhancing the amount of compensation. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Modi has placed reliance upon the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.2724 of 2008. He has also placed reliance upon the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.2341 of 2018. Learned advocate Mr.Modi has also placed reliance upon the decision by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Somabhai Dhurabhai Sindhava reported in 1993(2) GLR 1043 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.Pathak appearing for the Insurance Company has opposed this appeal. It is mainly contended that considering the evidence placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount under the head of future loss of income. It is submitted that during the cross-examination at Exh.28 of the claimant, he has confirmed that his income was increased after the accident and at the time of his retirement, his gross salary was around Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further submitted that during cross-examination of witness, Huned Taherbhai Chinwala, Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda at Exh.38, he has also stated that the claimant Binodbhai was working as Manager in the Bank and has stated that after the injuries, salary of the claimant was increased. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the claimant was not degraded from his rank nor his salary was decreased and in fact, the income of the claimant was increased after the accident. It is, therefore, urged that no error is committed by the Tribunal while not granting any compensation under the aforesaid head. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.3,000/- towards transportation, attendant charges and special diet. 5.1 Learned advocate Ms. Pathak has placed reliance upon the decision rendered on 18.10.2010 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. She has also placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Karnataka High Court in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors. Vs. Prakash P.R.S. and Ors. reported in 2013 ACJ 1813 and Subash Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. She has also placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Karnataka High Court in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors. Vs. Prakash P.R.S. and Ors. reported in 2013 ACJ 1813 and Subash Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors. reported in 2011 ACJ 1131 . 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that in the claim petition filed by the present appellant – claimant, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,33,600/- with the proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the claimant under various heads by considering his income at Rs.29,400/- per month. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of future loss of income. It is revealed from the material placed on record and from the observations made by the Tribunal that the Tribunal has considered the cross-examination of the claimant which was recorded at Exh.28. It is specifically stated by the claimant that after the accident, his income was increased and at the time of retirement, his gross salary was Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, witness Huned Taherbhai Chinwala, Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda, whose deposition was recorded at Exh.38, has also stated that after the accident, salary of the claimant was increased. Thus, the Tribunal has observed that the claimant was not degraded from his rank nor his salary was decreased and on the contrary, his income was increased after the accident. It is also observed that looking to the job and nature of work of the claimant, he was not supposed to do any manual or physical work. It is also clear from the record that the claimant has agreed to consider disability as 5% body as a whole and pursish to that effect was submitted on 18.12.2007. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, at this stage, this Court would like to refer the decisions/orders, upon which, reliance is placed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 7. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph-9 as under: “9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. 7. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph-9 as under: “9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.” 8. In the judgment and order dated 12.09.2013 passed by this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jagdishbhai Dharamdas & Anr in First Appeal No.2724 of 2008, this Court has observed in Paragraphs-10.1 and 11 as under: “10.1 After going through the said observations, I find that the Supreme Court stated that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100 per cent (or even anything more than 50 per cent), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. 11. In the case before me, the learned Tribunal below has not awarded any amount towards loss of future earning and in such circumstances, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal should be justified in awarding Rs.3,12,816-00 for loss of amenities as consequence of the physical disablement. 11. In the case before me, the learned Tribunal below has not awarded any amount towards loss of future earning and in such circumstances, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal should be justified in awarding Rs.3,12,816-00 for loss of amenities as consequence of the physical disablement. It, however, appears that the learned Tribunal described the said amount under the head of “loss of income due to disability”. As an appellate Court, I propose to award the said amount not towards “loss of income due to disability” but towards “compensation for loss of amenities as consequence of the disablement” inasmuch as for the accident, a 100% fit person had become 75% disabled in the opinion of the expert even though the Tribunal has considered it only at 38%, and the appellant cannot evade it’s responsibility for paying compensation for such disablement of the claimant for the rest of his life.” 9. In the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by this Court in the case of Narendrasinh Kubersinh Solanki Vs. Sattarbhai K. Mansuri in First Appeal No.2341 of 2018, this Court has observed in Paragraphs-8, to 10 as under: “8. It clearly appears from the reasonings given by the Tribunal that only considering the fact that the appellant is not adversely affected and is also promoted to the post of Head Constable, the Tribunal has denied the benefit of future loss of income. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. vs. Rameshbhai Ramniklal Vyas in First Appeal No.1333/11, in similar facts wherein the claimant was a teacher and had sustained injuries, the Division Bench has observed thus - “6. The compensation to be awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, by the Tribunal, can be broadly classified into two categories. One would be the compensation for actual loss, which would include actual loss sustained by the person concerned, including the medical expenses and the loss in the present employment and another loss would be the loss sustained by the person concerned keeping in view the future income. One would be the compensation for actual loss, which would include actual loss sustained by the person concerned, including the medical expenses and the loss in the present employment and another loss would be the loss sustained by the person concerned keeping in view the future income. The span of future income would not be restricted to only till a person is in government service or semi-government service or in any other employment, but, such future income is also to be considered, keeping in mind the life span of the person and it may also include postretirement period also. It is true that if the person has not sustained any actual loss of income in the present employment, the principle of applicability of the multiplier, keeping in view the age of the person, may not apply. But, for the future income, after retirement, it is by now well settled that the multiplier of five can be considered for the purpose of awarding compensation. The aforesaid is to be appreciated and examined keeping in view the aspect that the claimant was working, at the time of the accident, as a teacher. The Tribunal, therefore, considered that the injured applicant may take tuitions after retirement and such view cannot be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has taken a perverse view of the matter, for the purpose of awarding compensation for future income, even if the person did not actually sustained loss of income in the employment on account of the injury. If the aforesaid aspect is considered, keeping in view the evidence on record, we find that after taking into consideration the present income and excluding the prospective income, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of five for the purpose of awarding compensation and such can be said to be reasonable view taken by the Tribunal.” 9. Similarly, in the case of Rameshbhai Ramnikbhai Vyas vs. Ismail Ibrahim and Suleman Ibrahim in First Appeal No.705/12, the facts are almost identical wherein the appellant therein was working as teacher. The Division Bench has observed thus “9. In case of Rajendra versus Pradeep Patwari and Others (supra), it appears that there is no ratio laid down. In absence of facts about future functional activities of the injured claimant, it cannot be applied to the case on hand. The Division Bench has observed thus “9. In case of Rajendra versus Pradeep Patwari and Others (supra), it appears that there is no ratio laid down. In absence of facts about future functional activities of the injured claimant, it cannot be applied to the case on hand. As regards the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the claimant was police personnel. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has in para 11 discussed that the the injuries which the claimant suffered due to accident rendered him helpless and crippled for the rest of his life and after long treatment, his left leg below knee is amputed. The injured claimant therein had suffered injuries and fracture on left hand also. Therefore, apart from amputation of left leg below knee, he remained under plaster for these injuries, treated in various hospitals as indoor patient. Considering such special facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded in the said case was enhanced. It is pertinent to note that both the learned advocates relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar (supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle relating to awarding of compensation in injury cases. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has ruled that in case of permanent disability, the tribunal has to ascertain the activities the claimant should carry out inspite of permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability suffered by him. The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that it depends upon the job the claimant was performing prior to the accident and the impact of accident on his future functioning. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that it depends upon the job the claimant was performing prior to the accident and the impact of accident on his future functioning. It may be that in some case there cannot be any loss of future earning on account of injury, still, he may be awarded compensation on account of different factors. Summarizing the principles, Hon'ble the Supreme Court ruled that all injuries or permanent disabilities arising from injuries, do not result in loss of earning capacity. The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability. The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. Therefore, the Tribunal should assess the loss of earning capacity on the basis of entire evidence on record. Thus,in each case, the Tribunal has to assess the loss of earning capacity on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. Considering the four injuries sustained by the appellant and his treatment and also considering the fact the Tribunal has already calculated 52% disability for body as a whole instead of 44 per cent disability as per the evidence of the Doctor, we are of the view that the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation to the appellant and we do not find any error on the part of the Tribunal in applying the multiplier of 5.” 10. In the case on hand, there is no dispute as far as the income is concerned. In the case on hand, there is no dispute as far as the income is concerned. The Tribunal has noted that the appellant as well as the insurance company based upon the disability certificate issued by the Doctor has agreed that permanent whole body disability is to be considered at 8%. Only because the appellant is working as constable and has been promoted as head constable, it cannot be said that the span of future income would be restricted to only till he remains in Government service, but the same has to be considered in light of the life span of a person which also includes post retirement period also as decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid judgments. In the case on hand also the appellant would be entitled to compensation by adopting multiplier of 5 as there is no economic loss. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion therefore, the claimant would be entitled to compensation as under Rs.6,500/-(salary p.m.) + 50% (prospective income as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) as the appellant is in Government job) = Rs.9,750/- X 12 X 5 (multiplier) X 8% (disability) = Rs.46,800/-” 10. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors. Vs. Prakash P.R.S. and Ors. (supra), the Karnataka High Court has observed in Paragraphs-16, 21 and 23 as under: 16. In the present case, the claimant though suffered almost 90% physical disability being rendered paraplegic, he did not suffer earning disability at all. As a matter of fact, this income increased and not decreased. This fact has not been disputed by the claimant. In view thereof, undoubtedly he is entitled to claim damages separately under the heads “loss of amenities” and “loss of expectation of lie”. We have made reference to the physical shock, pain, suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future by the claimant. The claimant who was absolutely hale and hearty person has now been crippled and can move only on wheel chair. He claimed lump sum amount of Rs.9 crores under all heads. Learned senior counsel for the claimant before us however submitted that at least half the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads disability/loss of future income be awarded for the loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. He claimed lump sum amount of Rs.9 crores under all heads. Learned senior counsel for the claimant before us however submitted that at least half the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads disability/loss of future income be awarded for the loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. As against this, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant would not be entitled for anything more than Rs.3,00,000/- for the loss of amenities of loss of expectation of life. xxx xxx xxx 21. The percentage of disability suffered by the claimant is not in dispute. However, from the evidence/material on record, it is clear that it was physical disability and not earning/ functional disability. As observed earlier, the income of the claimant, in fact, increased after the accident. This in all fairness, has been accepted by learned senior counsel for the claimnat. He submitted that the income tax returns filed on record clearly show that his income increased after the accident. In other words, he conceded that there is no loss of future income. However, he submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head may be treated in respect of claim for loss of amenities and he may be granted at least half of the said amount for the same. While examining the effect of the injuries/disabilities suffered, we have ascertained what activities the claimant could carry on and whether he is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, to earn or continue to earn. xxx xxx xxx 23. Insofar as claim for future prospects is concerned, undoubtedly having regard to the talent of the claimant and so also his expertise and the qualification, he definitely would have achieved and earned much more than what he had achieved and has been earning now, if he was a normal human being. The disability suffered by the claimant has undoubtedly given him a set back insofar as future prospects are concerned. We are, therefore, inclined to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of future prospects.” 11. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. The disability suffered by the claimant has undoubtedly given him a set back insofar as future prospects are concerned. We are, therefore, inclined to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of future prospects.” 11. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that after the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the Tribunal has considered the fact that after the accident, income of the claimant is increased and claimant was not degraded and at the time of his retirement, his gross salary was Rs.1 lakh. It is also clear from the record that looking to the job and nature of the work of the claimant, he was not supposed to do any manual or physical work and the claimant has agreed to consider disability as 5% body as a whole. 12. In the case of Narendrasinh Kubersinh Solanki Vs. Sattarbhai K. Mansuri (supra), the concerned Claimant was working as a Head Constable and, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable. Thus, the claimant of the said case was Government servant. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the decision rendered by the Division Bench, where the claimant was a Teacher in the facts and circumstances of the said case, observed that the Tribunal has not committed any error while applying multiplier of 5. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid order that the concerned Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the said case, has applied multiplier of 5 and this Court, therefore, adopted multiplier of 5. 13. In the case of Jagdishbhai Dharamdas & Anr (supra), this Court has awarded compensation for loss of amenities as a consequence of the disablement because the concerned claimant became 70% disabled in the vehicular accident. Hence, the aforesaid decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that no error is committed by the Tribunal while not awarding compensation under the head of future loss of income. 15. Hence, the aforesaid decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that no error is committed by the Tribunal while not awarding compensation under the head of future loss of income. 15. However, at the same time, the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.5,000/- for pain, shock and suffering and Rs.3,000/- for transportation, attendant charges and special diet. Thus, looking to the evidence produced before the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the claimant is entitled to Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.15,000/- under the head of transportation, attendant charges and special diet. 16. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,60,600/-. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,33,600/-, the claimant would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.27,000/- as additional compensation along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The insurance Company shall deposit the additional/enhanced amount along with the interest as provided in this judgment within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. 17. The appeal is thus partly-allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.