ORDER : R.M.Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 29.5.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar @ Mahuva in M.A.C.P. No.73 of 2016, the original claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for the sake of gravity). 2. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal: 2.1. That on 24.8.2016 at about 6.30 am, when the appellant as Cleaner was travelling in his own truck being DCM Eicher Truck bearing registration No.GJ-4X-7250 which was being driven as per the traffic rules, a truck came from the other side being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the said truck dashed with the DCM truck of the appellant from the front side because of which the DCM Eicher turned turtled and went into the culvert. 2.2. It is the case of the appellant that because of the said accident, he received serious injuries. An FIR was lodged with the jurisdiction police station and the appellant preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal which was registered as Motor Accidents Claim Petition No.73 of 2016 and claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 2.3. It was the case of the appellant that as an owner of the DCM Eicher Truck, he used to earn Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month. It was the case of the appellant that he was 40 years old on the date of the accident and because of the accident, he had to undergo extensive treatment three times before two different hospitals and had to undergo pain, shock and suffering to a very grave extent. It was originally the case of the appellants that he has sustained permanent disability to the body as a whole to the extent of 60.1%. However, by a Purshis vide Exh.21, the appellant declared before the Tribunal to consider 30% disability of the body as a whole which has been accepted by the tribunal. 2.4. It was the case of the appellant that he was admitted as indoor patient for many days and relied upon documentary evidence Exh.30 (Medical Bills). However, by a Purshis vide Exh.21, the appellant declared before the Tribunal to consider 30% disability of the body as a whole which has been accepted by the tribunal. 2.4. It was the case of the appellant that he was admitted as indoor patient for many days and relied upon documentary evidence Exh.30 (Medical Bills). The tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record determined the income of the appellant @ Rs.5,000/- and upon appreciating the evidence of medical bills on record, while partly allowing the claim petition awarded Rs.2,70,000/- under the head of future loss of income, Rs.10,000/- as actual loss of income, Rs.5,50,000/- as medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- as special diet, transportation and attendant charges and Rs.15,000/- as pain shock and suffering and tribunal, thus passed an award of Rs.8,50,000/- together with 9% interest from the date of the petition till its realization with proportionate costs. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants – original claimants have preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellant – original claimant and Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No.3. Though served, no-one appears for respondent No.2. As the liability is not denied by the insurance company, presence of respondent No.1 is not essential for deciding the present appeal. 4. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the appeal was taken up for its final disposal forthwith. 5. Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellant has produced for perusal of this Court the certified copies of the relevant evidence which were produced before the tribunal which have been appreciated by the Court. Mr. Modi has contended as under : 5.1. That the tribunal has committed an error in determining the income of the appellant @ Rs.5,000/- per month. He has relied on the following documentary evidence. Sr. No. Details Exhibit 1. Discharge Summaries 25 to 28 2. Disability Certificate of Applicant 29 3. Medical and Transpiration Bills 30 4. Copy of Complaint 36 5. Copy of Panchnama 37 6. Copy of Discharge Card 38 7. Copy of Voter ID Card 39 8. Copy of D.L. of Driver of Truck 40 9. Copy of R.C. Book of Truck 41 10. Copy of Authorization Certificate of Truck 42 11. Copy of Permit of Truck 43 12. Copy of Insurance Policy of Truck 44 13. Copy of D.L. of Driver of Eicher 45 14. Copy of Voter ID Card 39 8. Copy of D.L. of Driver of Truck 40 9. Copy of R.C. Book of Truck 41 10. Copy of Authorization Certificate of Truck 42 11. Copy of Permit of Truck 43 12. Copy of Insurance Policy of Truck 44 13. Copy of D.L. of Driver of Eicher 45 14. Copy of R.C. Book and Screen Report of Eicher 46 15. Copy of Fitness of Eicher 47 16. Copy of Permit of Eicher 48 17. Copy of Investigation Report of Eicher 49 18. Copy of Insurance Policy of Eicher 50 5.2. Referring to the document at Exh.41, the RC Book as well as Exh.42 Authorization Certificate of truck it was contended by Mr. Modi that the appellant was the owner of the DCM Eicher Truck and hence, income as determined by the tribunal is very low. Mr. Modi further submitted that even though concrete evidence could not be produced by the appellant as regards income, the appellant being the owner of the truck which was given on hire basis by the appellant and the income of the appellant was around Rs.40,000/- per month as claimed before the tribunal. 5.3. Relying upon the evidence of hospitalization being Exh.38, it was contended by Mr. Modi that the appellant had to remain as indoor patient for almost two months and had to be operated at two different Orthopaedic hospitals. Mr. Modi contended that the tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in awarding a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- as actual loss of income, Rs.5,000/- as special diet, transpiration and attendant charges and Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering which deserve to be enhanced appropriately. 5.4. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appeal be allowed, as prayed for. 6. Per contra, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has opposed this appeal. 6.1. Mr. Mehta contended that there is no evidence on record to even prove that the income of the appellant was Rs.5,000/- per month. Mr. Mehta has further contended that even considering the minimum wages standard and as the appellant was a cleaner, the tribunal has committed no error which requires any modification. Mr. 6.1. Mr. Mehta contended that there is no evidence on record to even prove that the income of the appellant was Rs.5,000/- per month. Mr. Mehta has further contended that even considering the minimum wages standard and as the appellant was a cleaner, the tribunal has committed no error which requires any modification. Mr. Modi contended that the tribunal has already awarded a huge amount of Rs.5,50,000/- towards medical expenses and after appreciating the evidence on record, the tribunal has correctly granted compensation as actual loss of income and compensation under the head of special diet, transportation and attendant charges as well as pain, shock and suffering which does not require any modification. 6.2. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the appeal being merit-less deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other or further contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. We have perused the certified copies of the relevant evidence recorded before the tribunal submitted by Mr. Modi and have also considered the submissions made by both the sides. 9. The certificate of registration at Exh.46 clearly shows that the DCM Eicher Truck bearing registration No.GJ-4X-7250 was of the ownership of the appellant. We find that there is no evidence on record even to determine the income of the appellant was Rs.40,000/- per month as contended by Mr. Modi before us. However, the fact remains that though the appellant was working as a cleaner as the appellant himself was owner of the truck involved in the accident, the minimum wages standard cannot be applied as canvassed by learned counsel for the insurance company. While fixing the income of the appellant notionally though the tribunal was conscious about the fact that the appellant was the owner of the truck, only because he was working as a cleaner, the tribunal has assessed the income @ Rs.5,000/- which in opinion of this Court is very low. A truck is a transport carrier which is given on hire. The appellant as a owner must have no licence to drive the vehicle and, therefore he hired services of a driver. A truck is a transport carrier which is given on hire. The appellant as a owner must have no licence to drive the vehicle and, therefore he hired services of a driver. Only because he used to accompany the driver as a cleaner would not mean that he ceased to be the owner of the truck and considering such circumstances, even while fixing the notional income of the appellant, we deem it fit to quantify Rs.10,000/- per month. 10. Considering the proposition of the appellant / claimant before the tribunal, Exh.19 as well as discharge certificate at Exh.38 and the evidence on record, it clearly appears that the appellant had to was first treated at Government Sir T Hospital, Bhavnagar, then at Vivekanand Multispeciality Hospital, Bhavnagar by Dr. Harshvardhan R. Jadeja and also at Advance Orthopedic Fracture Care Hospital at Bhavnagar. The evidence on record indicates that he was also treated at GCS Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Ahmedabad for bone grafting and in addition thereto that he has undergone surgery for fracture of right femur fracture. Considering the degree of injuries which are shown in the medical papers before us, it transpires that almost for two months, the appellant had to be under hospitalization and has passed through pain, shock and suffering. Upon re-appreciating such evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the tribunal has committed an error in quantifying the compensation under the heads of special diet, transportation and attendant charges, pain, shock and suffering as well. 11. As far as permanent disability of the body as a whole is concerned, there is a consent by the appellant and, therefore, the same does not require any further discussion in this appeal. 12. In totality of facts upon re-appreciating the evidence on record, this Court having come to the conclusion that the income of the appellant should be @ Rs.10,000/- per month, and considering the multiplier of 15, the appellant would be entitled to compensation as under for future loss of income: Rs.10,000/- X 30% X 12 X 15 = Rs.5,40,000/- 13. 12. In totality of facts upon re-appreciating the evidence on record, this Court having come to the conclusion that the income of the appellant should be @ Rs.10,000/- per month, and considering the multiplier of 15, the appellant would be entitled to compensation as under for future loss of income: Rs.10,000/- X 30% X 12 X 15 = Rs.5,40,000/- 13. Over and above, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as special diet, transportation and attendant charges as he was hospitalized and was semi bed-ridden for almost two months, and considering the fact that he had to come to Ahmedabad for surgery of for bone grafting, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.45,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 14. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellant would be entitled to total amount of compensation as under: Future loss of income Rs.5,40,000/- Actual loss of income Rs.20,000/- Medical Expenses as awarded by the tribunal Rs.5,50,000/- Special diet etc. Rs.15,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs.45,000/- TOTAL Rs.11,70,000/- 15. As the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-, the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization with proportionate cost. The insurance company is directed to deposit the said additional amount with interest and proportionate cost with the tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of writ of this order. 16. The appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. The impugned judgment and award stands modified accordingly. No order as to costs in this appeal.