JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Gandhidham at Kutch in MACP no.191 of 2011, the appellant-original claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:- That the accident took place on 26.2.2011. It is the case of the appellant-original claimant that on the date of the accident, he was sitting as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-12 BE-2858 which was being driven by his brother. It is the case of the appellant that when the motorcycle reached Bhimani Way Bridge, situated at Galpadar Highway Road, a car bearing registration no. GJ-12 AK-0872 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the motorcycle because of which the claimant fell down. It is the case of the appellant that because of the impact of the accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries, which has resulted into permanent disability to the tune of 52%. Record indicates that FIR came to be lodged with the jurisdictional Police Station. The appellant-original claimant filed the present claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.24,00,000/-. It was the case of the appellant that the accident occurred because of the sole negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the Car. It was the case of the appellant that he was 19 years old and was doing fabrication work and thereby, earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The appellant was examined at Exh.21. The appellant also relied upon the documentary evidences, such as, copy of FIR at Exh.4/1, copy of panchnama of the place of accident at Exh.4/2, copy of MLC at Exh.4/3, copy of R.C.Book of car no. GJ-12 AK-0872 at Exh.4/4, copy of insurance policy of car no. GJ-12 AK-0872 at Exh.4/5, copy of driving license of Sajit Multani at Exh.4/6, copy of driving license of Bharat original opponent no.1-Kantilal Sauni at Exh.4/7, copy of R.C. Book of motorcycle no. GJ-12 BE-2858 at Exh.4/8, copy of insurance policy of motorcycle no. GJ-12 BE-2858 at Exh.4/9, disability certificate at Exh.22, medical bills at Exh.24 to 27 and closing pursis at Exh.29. 3. GJ-12 BE-2858 at Exh.4/8, copy of insurance policy of motorcycle no. GJ-12 BE-2858 at Exh.4/9, disability certificate at Exh.22, medical bills at Exh.24 to 27 and closing pursis at Exh.29. 3. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant has not adduced any evidence to prove his income and by a guesswork, determined the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , considering the age of the appellant to be 19 years on the date of the accident, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 18. It is a matter of record that the appellant by a purshis agreed that the permanent disability of the body as a whole is to the extent of 52%, relying upon the disability certificate at Exh.22. Considering the said piece of evidence, the Tribunal assessed the compensation under the head of loss of future income at Rs.3,36,960/-. The Tribunal considered the documentary evidence Exh.24 to 27 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,34,740/- towards medical expenses. Over and above the same, the Tribunal considered the actual loss of income for one month and awarded Rs.3,000/- as compensation under the head of actual loss of income, Rs.7,500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- as compensation under the head of special diet, transportation and attendant charges and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,87,200/- along with 7% interest per annum with proportionate costs and interest. The Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded Rs.4,87,200/- with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-original claimant has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the insurance Company. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents. We have also perused the original record and proceedings. By an order dated 2.2.2018, the Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to issue notice for final disposal and hence, the learned advocates were heard for final disposal of the appeal. 5. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the insurance Company. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents. We have also perused the original record and proceedings. By an order dated 2.2.2018, the Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to issue notice for final disposal and hence, the learned advocates were heard for final disposal of the appeal. 5. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellant contended that though the evidence shows that the appellant was self-employed person doing fabrication work which is a skilled job, the Tribunal has assessed income by guess work at Rs.3,000/- per month only. Mr. Modi contended that the Tribunal has thus committed an error in assessing the income. Mr. Modi submitted that even in absence of any concrete evidence, the Tribunal ought to have relied upon the minimum wages standard as applicable in the State of Gujarat from the date of the accident. 5.1 Mr. Modi further contended that considering the degree of injury sustained by the appellant because of the accident, wherein even the permanent disability of the body as a whole is assessed at 52%, the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.7,500/- as pain, shock and suffering which deserves to be enhanced as prayed for. Mr. Modi further contended that the Tribunal has also committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record and more particularly, the extent of treatment which the appellant was required to take because of the accident and has wrongly awarded a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation under the head of special diet, transportation and attendant charges which deserves to be suitably enhanced. Mr. Modi contended that as the income is wrongly calculated, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding only Rs.3,000/- as actual loss of income for one month. Mr. Modi also contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the medical evidence on record and has wrongly discarded permanent disability of the body as a whole sustained by the appellant and has not awarded any amount towards the loss of amenities. Mr. Modi also contended that on the date of the accident, the appellant was just 19 years old and because of imputation of one leg at a tender age of 19, the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount towards loss of amenities. Mr. Modi also contended that on the date of the accident, the appellant was just 19 years old and because of imputation of one leg at a tender age of 19, the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount towards loss of amenities. On the aforesaid grounds, it was therefore contended that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified accordingly. 6. Per contra, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the insurance Company has supported the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Nanavati contended that the appellant has not been able to prove the income as claimed in the claim petition. Mr. Nanavati contended that considering the date of accident to be 26.2.2011, the Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month as he was self-employed person doing some fabrication work that too, at Gandhidham, District Kutch. Mr. Nanavati further contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has awarded just compensation under different heads including pain, shock and suffering and special diet, transportation and attendant charges. According to Mr. Nanavati, the same does not require any modification and the appeal, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other or further submissions, averments, grounds and/or contentions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 8. Having appreciated the evidence on record and considering the submissions made, it is a matter of fact that the appellant has not adduced any evidence to prove the income. However, the record clearly establishes the fact and the appellant has been able to prove that he was doing fabrication work which is of a skilled nature. Even considering the minimum wages standard as applicable in the State of Gujarat on the date of the accident i.e. 26.2.2011, the income of Rs.3,000/- as determined by the Tribunal is less and following the minimum wages standard, in opinion of this Court, income of the appellant can safely be assessed at Rs.4,300/-. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 as well as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 as well as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , as the age of the appellant was 19 years on the date of the accident and as he was self-employed person, the appellant would be entitled to prospective income to the tune of 40%. As the extent of disability is agreed between the parties before the Tribunal at 52% permanent disability of the body as a whole, the same does not require any alteration. However, in view of the aforesaid, the appellant would be entitled to compensation under the head of future loss of income as under:- Rs.4,300/- income + Rs.1,720/- (40% prospective income) = Rs.6,020/- X 52% disability = Rs.3,130/- X 12 = Rs.37,560/- X 18 = Rs.6,76,080/- future loss of income. 9. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellant would also be entitled to Rs.4,300/- as actual loss of income for one month. Similarly, loss of important limb namely right leg which was required to be imputed because of the impact of the accident, the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of amenities. The extent of injury received by the appellant would surely impact and affect his ability to carry out fabrication work and over and above the same, there would be loss of amenities of life, that too, at a tender age of 19 years. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs.75,000/- deserves to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities. Upon reappreciating the same set of evidence and considering the gravity of injury and ultimate effect and impact of the accident upon the physical condition of the appellant, in opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of actual loss of income, Rs.7,500/- towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, transporataion and attendant charges. Upon reappreciation of the evidence as a whole, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering should be Rs.75,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as special diet, transportation and attendant charges to arrive at just compensation which is the soul of the Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid therefore, the appellant would be entitled to compensation as under:- Rs.6,76,080/- Future loss of income + Rs.1,34,740/- Medical expenses + Rs.4,300/- Actual loss of income + Rs.75,000/- Pain, shock and suffering + Rs.25,000/- Special diet, transportation and attendant charges + Rs.75,000/- Loss of amenities = Rs.9,90,120/- Total compensation 11. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,90,120/- along with 7% interest per annum and costs as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,87,200/-, the appellant would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.5,02,920/- as additional compensation along with 7% interest per annum and proportionate cost 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 three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. 12. The appeal is thus partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Registry is directed to remit the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.