JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-lady claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxilliary), Surendranagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 395 of 2008 on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded. 2. The facts of the case are that on 20.02.2008, the claimant was travelling with other passengers in a luxury bus bearing Registration No. GJ-13-V-1062. When the Luxury Bus reached Thansara Road and between Ranipat-Dadholiya, in the jurisdiction of Muli Police Station, it is the case that the Luxury Bus turned turtle as the driver-the respondent No. 2 lost control over the steering because of rash and negligent driving and in the result, the claimant suffered grievous injuries which led to amputation of her left hand. 3. Learned Advocate for the claimant-lady Ms. Amrita Ajmera submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering only Rs. 3,000/- per month as the income of the claimant who was aged 28 years at the time of the accident. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that apart from doing labour work she was taking care of her house and was maintaining her family. It is further submitted that because of the accident, she was hospitalized from 20.02.2008 till 13.03.2008 for about 23 days as an indoor patient, the claimant was operated upon and her left hand was amputated from the shoulder. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has seriously erred in granting only Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, while no amount has been granted towards the prosthetic arm and further, very less amount has been granted towards loss of amenities of life which ought to have been considered after appreciating the facts that the claimant was a working woman, was also a house wife and amputation of her left hand would create great hardship in her day to day life and because of the amputation, the claimant had stopped going for any gainful employment nor was she able to get labour work. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not granted any prospective rise in income and the amount under the head of actual loss of income is also erroneously assessed while the amount for the attendant charges considering the permanent disability has not been considered in its right perspective. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not granted any prospective rise in income and the amount under the head of actual loss of income is also erroneously assessed while the amount for the attendant charges considering the permanent disability has not been considered in its right perspective. It is also submitted that amount under the head of special diet and transportation is very less. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant-claimant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 218 , Kirti and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 and Rajendra Singh and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 256 to submit that the services rendered by the home maker should not be under estimated and future prospective rise in income should be granted even in the case of a home maker and that there should not be any general differences only on the ground that the work of the home maker do not add economic value to household. Thus, it is further submitted that the parameters fixed in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the rise in future prospective income should be granted to the claimant and hence, this Court may exercise its discretion in the case. 5. Countering the above arguments, learned Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. Y.H. Motiramani submitted that the insurance company, respondent No. 3-IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited has not challenged the assessment of the compensation made by the Tribunal which according to the learned Advocate is just and reasonable. It is further submitted that no evidence has been led by the claimant to show that the claimant was engaged in labour work and was generating income outside the family and thus, the Court should be slow in setting aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 5.....(a) Despite notice served, the respondent No. 2-IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company is not represented by any Advocate. 6. On having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusing the records of the case, it appears that the claimant before the Tribunal had asserted that her age was 28 years at the time of the accident. 5.....(a) Despite notice served, the respondent No. 2-IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company is not represented by any Advocate. 6. On having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusing the records of the case, it appears that the claimant before the Tribunal had asserted that her age was 28 years at the time of the accident. The documentary evidence in the form of Injury Certificate at Exhibit 37 was considered by the Tribunal wherein the claimant’s age is reflected as 30 years. Hence, the learned Tribunal considered the age of the claimant as 30 years at the time of the accident. No other documentary evidence was produced to counter before this Court to set aside the conclusion of the Tribunal that the claimant’s was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. 7. In the claim petition, the claimant has stated that she was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by doing labour work and was also doing household work. In the cross examination, at Exhibit 24, in M.A.C.P. No. 395 of 2008, the claimant admitted that she has not produced any evidence to show her income, but at the same time, has denied the suggestion that she was not earning any income at the time of her accident. The learned Tribunal has deemed it appropriate to consider Rs. 3,000/- per month as the income of the claimant, in view of the disability certificate at Exhibit 48, wherein permanent partial disability was assessed by the Medical Officer at 75%. The claimant had examined Dr. Yogendra D. Solanki at Exhibit 47 who was the orthopaedic surgeon and was having a private practice. After having examined her left hand which was amputated above the elbow, in the cross examination, the Doctor had deposed that if both the hands are amputated, then it would be considered as 100% disability and if there is amputation of hand or limb in particular, then permanent disability for a body as a whole should be considered as 50% but the learned Tribunal inspite of this fact on record, has considered the permanent partial disability as 38%. The claimant had also produced her photograph which is on record at Page 165 of the petition, which shows that the amputation is above the elbow but just below the shoulder. 8. In the case of Kirti (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court speaking through Hon’ble Mr. The claimant had also produced her photograph which is on record at Page 165 of the petition, which shows that the amputation is above the elbow but just below the shoulder. 8. In the case of Kirti (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, has dealt in the judgment observing two distinct categories of situation wherein the Court was determining the notional income of the victim. The first category of the case relates to those victim who are employed but the claimants are not able to prove their actual income before the Tribunal while the Court has to do guess work to determine income of the victim on the basis of the evidence on record like the quality of life being led by the victim and her family, the general earning of the individual employed in that field, the qualifications of the victim and other considerations. The second category of cases related to those non-earning victims such as a student or a home maker and the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered that compensation in such cases is extremely difficult to quantify. The Apex Court in the following paragraphs held as under: “20. One category of non-earning victims that Courts are often called upon to calculate the compensation for are homemakers. The granting of compensation for homemakers on a pecuniary basis, as in the present case, has been considered by this Court earlier on numerous occasions. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , while dealing with compensation for the victims of a fire during a function, granted compensation to housewives on the basis of the services rendered by them in the house, and their age. This Court, in that case, held as follows: “10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs. 12,000 per annum in cases of some and Rs. 10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs. 12,000 per annum in cases of some and Rs. 10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given data for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the data for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs. 3000 per month and Rs. 36,000 per annum.....” (Emphasis supplied) 21. In Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 9 SCC 218 , this Court, while dealing with the grant of compensation for the death of a housewife due to a motor vehicle accident, held as follows: “26. In India the courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. 27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother. 27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother. In that context, the term “services” is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier.” (Emphasis supplied) The above pronouncement has been followed by this Court in its recent judgment in Rajendra Singh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2020 SCC Online SC 521, wherein the notional income of a deceased housewife was calculated for the purposes of granting compensation in a motor accident case.” 9. In the present case, the claimant failed to produce any evidence to show her doing any labour work. Considering the observations in the case of Lata Wadhwa and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 197 and the reference made hereinabove in case of Kirti (supra), the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month assessed by the learned Tribunal as the income of the claimant is just and proper. In Kirti (supra) for the addition for future prospective rise in income of a home maker who falls in the category of a non-earning victim, the Apex Court in Paragraph 40 has laid down as under: “40. When it comes to the second category of cases, relating to notional income for non-earning victims, it is my opinion that the above principle applies with equal vigor, particularly with respect to homemakers. Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation would equally apply. Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in skills that come with experience do not take place in the domain of work within the household. Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation would equally apply. Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in skills that come with experience do not take place in the domain of work within the household. It is worth noting that, although not extensively discussed, this Court has been granting future prospects even in cases pertaining to notional income.” 10. Thus, following the principle as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) and the age of the claimant at the time of accident as 30 years, the addition towards future prospective rise in income would be 40%. Therefore, the same would be 40% of Rs. 3,000/- = Rs. 1,200/-. Hence, Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 1,200/- = Rs. 4,200/-. Applying the multiplier of 17, considering 50% permanent partial disability, the loss of income would be assessed as Rs. 4,200/- x 50% x 12 x 17 = Rs. 4,28,400/-. 11. The claimant was hospitalized from 20.02.2008 till 13.03.2008 for about 23 days as an indoor patient, the claimant was operated upon and her left hand was amputated. Considering this fact and that the claimant is a lady, the amount towards pain, shock and suffering of Rs. 50,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal is required to be enhanced and hence, this Court grants Rs. 75,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 12. Under the head of loss of amenities, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was strongly resisted by learned Advocate Ms. Ajmera for the claimant contending that the claimant is a young lady with an amputated hand. Apart from pecuniary loss, learned Advocate Ms. Ajmera stated that the non-pecuniary damages may have to be assessed keeping in mind the degree of deprivation and loss caused by such deprivation for just compensation and placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court: (a) R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control India Private Limited, 1995 (1) SCC 551 (b) Benson George vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2022 SC 1216 (c) Abhimanyu Pratap Singh vs. Namita Sekhon, 2022 JX (SC) 646 13. Ltd. AIR 2022 SC 1216 (c) Abhimanyu Pratap Singh vs. Namita Sekhon, 2022 JX (SC) 646 13. In the case of Sri Benson George (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the aspect of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life has observed in Paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 8 and 8.1 as under: “4.1 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , it is submitted that as held by this Court, when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% 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. 4.2 It is submitted that therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case no error has been committed by the High Court in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and happiness. 4.3 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company that decision of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) has been subsequently considered and followed by this Court in the case of Lalan D. alias Lal vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2020) 9 SCC 805 . 8. Now with regard to reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and Lalan D. alias Lal (supra), relied upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company is concerned, we are of the opinion that the amount of compensation to be awarded under the heads, pain and suffering and loss of amenities and happiness, there cannot be straight jacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it varies from person to person who has suffered due to the accident. So far as awarding compensation on the head of pain, shock and suffering is concerned, multiple factors are required to be considered namely, prolonged hospitalization; the grievous injuries sustained; the operations underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering. So far as awarding compensation on the head of pain, shock and suffering is concerned, multiple factors are required to be considered namely, prolonged hospitalization; the grievous injuries sustained; the operations underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering. 8.1 Similarly, loss of amenities and happiness suffered by the claimant and his family members also depend upon various factors, including the position of the claimant post-accident and whether, he is in a position to enjoy life and/or happiness which he was enjoying prior to the accident. To what extent the claimant has lost the amenities in life and the happiness will depend on the facts of each case.” 14. Here, in this case, the claimant is not in a bed ridden condition, her left arm is amputated above the elbow below the shoulder. It is not the case that the claimant cannot enjoy the happiness of life, her movements are not restricted by her physical disability, thus when loss in her future earning capacity is assessed as 50% following the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the amount granted by the Tribunal requires no interference. Paragraph 15 of the above decision reads as under: “15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%) 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.” 15. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 413 , a prayer is made by learned Advocate for the claimant Ms. Amrita Ajmera for granting attendant charges adopting the multiplier system. The learned Trial Court Judge in the matter at hand has assessed Rs. 3,000/- under the head of attendant charges for the assistance received as an indoor patient. This Court deems it just and reasonable. Amrita Ajmera for granting attendant charges adopting the multiplier system. The learned Trial Court Judge in the matter at hand has assessed Rs. 3,000/- under the head of attendant charges for the assistance received as an indoor patient. This Court deems it just and reasonable. In the case of Kajal (supra), the multiplier system was advocated acknowledging that the system was recognized by the Apex court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. vs. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1 . The multiplier method has been recognized as the most realistic and reasonable method, however in all cases of injury or permanent disablement “multiplier method” cannot be mechanically applied; it depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, vocation of the injured and whether the injured would remain idle till the rest of the life doing nothing because of the permanent disability the claimant has lost hope of life or may be in a vegetable state, where the claimant would not be in a position to do own personal chores, would require an attendant for his existence, then the multiplier method adopted to calculate the dependant charges would be profitable but in cases where claimants can strive to do work by themselves, without any support then granting money under dependant charges would mean unjust enrichment, which is not the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the power of the Tribunal is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person where the Tribunals are expected to make judicious attempt where compensation should not be assessed very conservatively but not so liberally so as to make it a bounty to the claimant, keeping in mind the degree of deprivation and loss caused by such deprivation which can be termed as just compensation. The claimant could be compensated to have prosthetic arm, so, that could add to her efficiency to do work and deal with her day to day life, though she may not be fully efficient as of natural woman, but could be sufficient, rather than rely on any dependent. Considering the above aspect, she might require a prosthetic arm and would have to make expenses in that regard. However, no documentary evidence has been produced with regard to any cost for the said limb. The Medical Officer Dr. Considering the above aspect, she might require a prosthetic arm and would have to make expenses in that regard. However, no documentary evidence has been produced with regard to any cost for the said limb. The Medical Officer Dr. Yogendra D. who examined at Exhibit 47 had recommended the use of an artificial limb and according to him, the same would cost about Rs. 7,00,000/- and for maintenance of batteries, the cost would come to Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. It appears that these figures have been stated on assumption while no comparative figures have been brought on record. Hence, under the head of prosthetic arm, the Court deems fit to grant Rs. 50,000/- towards the prosthetic arm. 16. The amount granted under the actual loss of income requires no interference. Further, for the amount under the head of Special Diet, transportation and medicines, no contrary evidence has been produced before the Court to consider any enhancement and hence, the amount granted by the learned Tribunal requires no interference. 17. Thus, the computation can be made as under: Details Amount Income per month Rs. 3,000.00 Add: Prospective rise in income @ 40% (Rs. 3,000/- x 40%) Rs. 1,200.00 Income per month Rs. 4,200.00 Considering the multiplier of 17 with permanent partial disability future loss of income can be considered as [Rs. 4,200/- x 50% x 12 x 17] Rs. 4,28,400.00 Attendance Charges Rs. 3,000.00 Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs. 75,000.00 Loss of Amenities of Life Rs. 50,000.00 Prosthetic Arm Rs. 50,000.00 TOTAL Rs. 6,06,400.00 18. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,03,560/- with rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum, which the respondents are liable to deposit, with the enhanced amount as Rs. 2,02,840/- (Rs. 6,06,400/- minus Rs. 4,03,560/-). In the result, the present respondents are directed to deposit the amount within a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. It is further directed that the claimants would be entitled to receive the enhanced compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application and the disbursement of the amount be made as per the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. 19. It is further directed that the claimants would be entitled to receive the enhanced compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application and the disbursement of the amount be made as per the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. 19. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxilliary), Surendranagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 395 of 2008 stands modified to the above extent. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.