JUDGMENT : 1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for seeking enhancement of amount which has been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) Bharuch Camp at Rajpipla dated 20.09.2005 in M.A.C.P. No. 1014 of 1989 (Main) consolidated with M.A.C.P. 587 of 1991. 2. The facts in brief which has given rise to the present appeal i.e. First Appeal 2313 of 2009 filed by the original claimant is that at the relevant point of time, deceased Shanabhai alias Chhanabhai (deceased in M.A.C.P. No. 1014 of 1989) was travelling in a Truck (Dumper) bearing registration No. GTY 6833 and the applicant of M.A.C.P. No.587 of 1991 was a driver of the said Truck. On the said date i.e. 28.04.1989, deceased Shanabhai alias Chhanabhai was travelling in a Truck bearing registration no. GTY 6833 along with his luggage from Motavan and was going towards Village Bhadarva. At that time, on Ankleshwar – Rajpipla State Highway near Gamkuva Bus Stand, one Truck bearing registration MWU 2328 was coming from the opposite direction and going towards Ankleshwar with excessive speed in a negligent manner and while overtaking the vehicle going ahead of it, despite signal being given by driver of Truck bearing registration no. GTY 6883, the said Truck bearing registration no. MWU 2328 dashed with the Truck in which deceased Shanabhai alia Chhanabhai was travelling i.e. Truck No. GTY 2328. The said Truck i.e. MWU 2328 was coming in a wrong direction and both the vehicles dashed on account of which deceased Shanabhai alias Chhanabhai and applicant i.e. Gadvabhai (M.A.C.P. No. 587 of 1991) sustained serious injuries. The injured i.e. Gadvabhai and deceased Shanabhai alias Chhanabhai at the relevant point of time were taken to the hospital initially at Rajpipla Hospital and then were transferred to S.S.G. Hospital at Vadodara. Shanabhai alias Chhanabhai died in the hospital at Vadodara on 18.06.1989, whereas, appellant – applicant (M.A.C.P. No. 587 of 1991) sustained serious injuries and was admitted in Rajpipla Civil Hospital, treated as indoor patient from 28.04.1989 to 12.05.1989. Since he was having fracture at Patella (Right) and head injury and other injuries on various parts of the body, the appellant was operated and plaster was also applied on him. Since he was having fracture at Patella (Right) and head injury and other injuries on various parts of the body, the appellant was operated and plaster was also applied on him. As a result of these serious injuries and the death of Shanabhai alias Chhanabhai, claim petitions were presented for seeking compensation from the opponents jointly and severally. Insofar as claim petition being M.A.C.P. 1014 of 1989 is concerned, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was sought by the legal heirs of the deceased by way of compensation i.e. by the widow and children whereas, in the case of present appellant, claim petition was submitted for seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the opponents, who are driver, owner and the Insurance Company. 2.1. Since this present appeal is relating to M.A.C.P. No. 587 of 1991 and not relating to M.A.C.P. No. 1014 of 1989, the facts relating to it are taken from the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Bharuch Camp at Rajpipla (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. 587 of 1991. The opponents i.e. opponents 1, 2 and 3 have been deleted, whereas, opponent no. 4 though duly served with the summons remained absent and hence, the Court proceeded exparte against them. In M.A.C.P. No. 587 of 1991, opponent no. 5 i.e. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its learned advocate filed reply at Exhibit-19 inter alia contending that the age and income of the applicant are denied. It was also denied that the applicant suffered any accidental injury as alleged and it is also denied that opponent no. 4 is the owner of the Truck (Dumper) No. GTY 6833 and the said dumper is admitted to have been insured with the opponent Insurance Company. It was also contended that opponent nos. 4 and 5 are not necessary party and opponent no. 4 has allowed the passengers in the Truck and committed breach of policy conditions. It was admitted, as recorded by the learned Tribunal, from the pleadings that the Truck bearing registration no. MWU 2328 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it was also submitted that if fault of the Insurance is found by the applicant then, it may be deducted from the award which may be passed. It was admitted, as recorded by the learned Tribunal, from the pleadings that the Truck bearing registration no. MWU 2328 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it was also submitted that if fault of the Insurance is found by the applicant then, it may be deducted from the award which may be passed. It was also denied that looking to the injuries on leg, it cannot be said that the he cannot drive any vehicle. So in substance, the claim raised by the appellant has been denied. 2.2. It is reflecting from the record that opponent no. 7 – United Insurance Co. Ltd., has also filed reply at Exhibit-90 inter alia contending that the applicant is aged about 28 years, was earning Rs.1,200/- per month. It was also denied that the appellant suffered any injury as indicated above and in substance, opponent no. 7 i.e. United Insurance Co. Ltd., has projected denial in general and thereby has contended that an amount of Rs.1 lakhs which has been sought for is not permissible to be awarded. The learned Tribunal upon completion of pleadings has framed issues at Exhibit-46 in M.A.C.P. No. 587 of 1991 which are to the effect that : (i) Whether it is proved that the applicant sustained injuries on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicles involved in the accident ? (ii) What amount the claimant is entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents? (iii) What order and award ? 2.3. After framing of such issues, it appears that Issue No. 1 was commonly examined and decided by the learned Tribunal and insofar as M.A.C.P. 587 of 1991 is concerned, appellant – Gadvabhai was examined at Exhibit-56 and has supported his version made in his claim petition. He has categorically stated and asserted in his deposition that the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck bearing registration no. MWU 2328 though he himself was driving the Truck bearing registration no. GTY 6833, he was also supported by the version of wife of deceased Shananbhai alias Chhanabhai who has also clearly deposed with regard to rash and negligent driving and overtaking of Truck bearing registration no. MWU 2328 though he himself was driving the Truck bearing registration no. GTY 6833, he was also supported by the version of wife of deceased Shananbhai alias Chhanabhai who has also clearly deposed with regard to rash and negligent driving and overtaking of Truck bearing registration no. MWU 2328 which was coming from a wrong side and dashed with the Truck in which her husband was travelling. Both were at the first instance admitted i.e. the present appellant as well as deceased at Rajpipla Civil Hospital and were later on shifted to SSG Hospital, Vadodara. Necessary panchanama which has been executed was also placed on record which reveals that Truck bearing registration no. GTY 6833 was on its own side and the Truck bearing registration no. MWU 2328 was in fact on the wrong side. The said panchanama at Exhibit-48 was clearly indicating the said effect. This evidence of applicant as well as material on record, appears to have not been controverted by any other cogent material and on the basis of the relevant FIR as well as panchnama of place of offence and medical papers, it was clearly found that in the said accident, serious injuries have been sustained by the applicant. The said fact has also been verified from the examination of Dr. Basu from the SSG Hospital whose deposition is recorded at Exhibit-44 and on the basis of such overall material on record, the learned Tribunal found that the owner of vehicle bearing registration no. GTY 6833 is not responsible or negligent at the time when the accident took place and as such, the Insurance Company of said Truck bearing registration no. GTY 6833 i.e. the New India Insurance Company is not responsible to pay compensation and as such, while deciding issue no. 1, the said Insurance Company came to be exonerated. This is more so, on account of the fact that neither the driver nor the owner or the Insurance Company of Truck bearing registration MWU 2328 is examined and the entire evidence having remain uncontroverted on the basis of the material available on record and in view of the principle of res-ipsa-loquitur, by holding driver of the Truck bearing registration no. MWU 2328 responsible for such accident, the issue came to be decide. 2.4. It appears from the record with regard to issued no. MWU 2328 responsible for such accident, the issue came to be decide. 2.4. It appears from the record with regard to issued no. 2 i.e. relating to quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has examined the material on record and has arrived at a conclusion and passed a final order which reads as under :- “The claim petition is hereby partly allowed. Opponent No. 6 and 7 i.e. owner & insurance company of Truck No. M.W.U.-2328 are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally to the applicant compensation amount of Rs.35,940/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Only) with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of application till its realization. Rest of the claim stands dismissed. On depositing the awarded amount within 60 days from the date of this order with interest and costs by the above opponents with this Tribunal, the office of the Tribunal is directed to deduct first of all, process-fees, court-fees, if any deficit from the deposited amount of compensation. The amount of interim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, if any paid to the applicant, shall be adjusted towards this final award. After deduction of amounts as aforesaid if any, from the remaining amount of compensation 60% amount be deposited in F.D.R., in the name of applicant in any Nationalized Bank for a period of six years and rest of 40% amount be paid to him by way of A/c. Payee Cheque. The applicant would be entitled to get amount of periodical interest on the said F.D.R. The bank shall not permit any withdrawal or create any liability on the said F.D.R., without prior approval of the Tribunal. Opponents to bear their own cost. Award be drawn accordingly. Copy of this common judgment be kept in records of M.A.C.P. Case No. 587/91.” 3. The present appeal since arising out of M.A.C.P. Case No. 587 of 1991, learned advocates have submitted that this appeal is only with regard to seeking enhancement and with respect to another claim petition being M.A.C.P. Case No. 1014 of 1989, same has been dealt with by the co-ordinate Bench and has been disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2022. A copy of the said order has been placed on record. Considering the aforesaid situation, being projected before the Court, present First Appeal is taken up for its final disposal. 4. Mr. A copy of the said order has been placed on record. Considering the aforesaid situation, being projected before the Court, present First Appeal is taken up for its final disposal. 4. Mr. M.T. M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the applicant is a driver of the heavy vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. GTY 6863 and as such, the quantum which has been awarded on various heads is too inadequate which deserves to be enhanced. It has been submitted that with regard to seeking a reasonable and just compensation, mainly two facts to be considered i.e. the age at the relevant point of time and the income which the injured was drawing at the time of accident. Here, in this case, the appellant claimant was aged about 40 years at the time of deposition and whose age was shown as 26 years at the time of accident and the case papers produced vide Exhibit-65 reflects the age as 27 years old. However, the learned Tribunal in the absence of any cogent material, has assumed the age of the applicant as 30 years to which there is not serious dispute by either side and as such, considering that age, the appropriate amount ought to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The main grievance which has been voiced out is that the learned Tribunal has erroneously held that the appellant was earning an amount of Rs.750/- per month and was also getting Rs.300/- by way of overtime from the employer and as such instead of Rs.1,100/- per month, merely an amount of Rs.750/- per month was arrived at by way of monthly income. In respect of disability though mentioned at 24%, the learned Tribunal has considered 12% whole as a bodily injury and as such, learned advocate Mr. Hakim has submitted that the multiplier which has been applied while determining the compensation is not just and proper. Hence, has requested to enhance the amount of compensation. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. In respect of disability though mentioned at 24%, the learned Tribunal has considered 12% whole as a bodily injury and as such, learned advocate Mr. Hakim has submitted that the multiplier which has been applied while determining the compensation is not just and proper. Hence, has requested to enhance the amount of compensation. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim has submitted that the appellant was driving heaving vehicle and as such, instead of Rs.1,100/- per month as claimed at least Rs.900/- per month ought to have been assumed to be salary of the appellant and since 100% negligence of another Truck is believed by the learned Tribunal, the aspects governing the grant of appropriate compensation ought to have been considered in its true perspective. It has been submitted that future loss which has been awarded in three months is not much controverted, but it should have been on the basis of the monthly income of Rs.900/-. Insofar as attendant charges and transportation is concerned, in spite of Rs.3,000/- the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.10,000/-. In respect of medical expenditure, since it is supported by medial bills etc., an amount of Rs.2,000/- which has been awarded is not in dispute. So far as amenities of life has not been awarded and to that extent learned advocate Mr. Hakim has submitted that amount of Rs.20,000/- ought to have been awarded considering the injuries which have been suffered by the appellant and as such, learned advocate Mr. Hakim has submitted that the appropriate amount of reasonable compensation ought to have been awarded. For the purpose of seeking amount under loss of expectancy, learned advocate Mr. Hakim has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 and has submitted that considering the nature of injuries i.e. fracture and head injury, the applicant was prevented not to resume duty and, therefore, appropriate amount deserves to be awarded on that count as well. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim has submitted that this amount which has been sought for as indicated above is well supported by the relevant testimony of witness available on record and as such, to that extent, the claim deserves to be enhanced by suitably modifying the judgment and award dated 20.09.2005. Insofar as it relates to M.A.C.P. No. 587 of 1991, in substance, learned advocate Mr. Insofar as it relates to M.A.C.P. No. 587 of 1991, in substance, learned advocate Mr. Hakim is claiming for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. As against this, Mr Palak Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company has opposed the stand of the appellant on the ground that insofar as income is concerned, there is no material worth the name. Simply because the appellant was driving a heavy vehicle, income of Rs.900/- per month cannot be assumed. On the contrary, as per minimum wages prevalent in the year 1990, it comes to Rs.900/- per month and the accident has taken place just the previous year before. Hence, to that extent also the stand of the appellant about determining the monthly income of Rs.900/- may not be accepted. So far as method of calculating disability is concerned, no grievance can be alleged by the appellant. Since there is clear concession made with such regard to bodily injuries/disability which is determined to the extent of 12% only. Hence, now the appellant may not turn around and seek enhancement. It has been submitted that the accident has occurred at the end of year 1989, and therefore, the question of attendant charges, diet etc., and the loss of amenities may not be considered further. In respect of pain, shock and suffering, as against the awarded amount an amount of Rs.7,000/-, the appellant has submitted that in view of the settled position of law, an amount of Rs.25,000/- be awarded. After resisting this stand of the appellant, learned advocate has left it to the discretion of the Court and has submitted that no excessive amount be awarded. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, following circumstances deserves consideration : 6.1. It appears from the record and substantiated by evidence that it is on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck bearing registration no. MWU 2328, the accident had taken place and it was also found by the learned Tribunal that there is no negligence on the part of the present appellant. It appears from the record and substantiated by evidence that it is on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck bearing registration no. MWU 2328, the accident had taken place and it was also found by the learned Tribunal that there is no negligence on the part of the present appellant. This has been well supported by the contents of FIR as well as panchanama of the place of incident and a clear finding on the basis of the evidence on record that it is on account of negligence of the said Truck driver and this fact having not been challenged by way of appeal, it has attained its finality. 6.2. Further, there is a categorical assertion in the evidence that the appellant was drawing monthly salary of Rs.900/- for driving such heavy vehicle and additionally was also getting an amount of Rs.300/- per month by way overtime from the concerned employer. This accident has taken place in the year 1989 and as against the case of Rs.1,100/- per month for driving such heavy vehicle on the basis of the Index of Minimum Wages Act, the learned Tribunal has inadequately ascertained the income @ Rs.750/- per month. Considering the earning of Rs.900/- per month and Rs.300/- per month by way of overtime, it appears reasonably to arrive at monthly income of Rs.900/- per month, even if there is no concrete material on record. This is in view of the fact that in the year 1990 according to minimum wages rate Rs.900/- per month is for unskilled category employee and this accident has taken place immediately preceding to 1990 and as such, as against Rs.1,100/- per month an amount of Rs.900/- which has been asserted by the applicant deserves to be accepted. Hence, on this head of monthly income, the order of learned Tribunal deserves to be modified to some extent. 6.3. Further, in view of the fact the age of the appellant was believed to be 30 years at the relevant point of time and multiplier of 18 is adopted, but in view of the broad proposition, this issue delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors., v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1211 multiplier of 17 deserves to be adopted. Hence, to that extent, instead of multiplier of 18, multiplier of 17 deserves to be applied. Since the appellant has conceded before the learned Tribunal and there is a categorical assertion about disability of 12% in overall is accepted, the Court is not inclined to disturb the same though tried to be adjudicated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Hence, applying multiplier of 17 with 12% disability, the income per month deserves to be quantified @ Rs.1,836/- per month and the annual income on that basis comes to Rs.22,032/-. 6.4. It appears from the record that the appellant has sustained fracture as well as injury on the head. This aspect has been fortified by the medical papers available on record in the form of Circular at (Exhibit-54). In the said certificate, it has been clearly stated that there appears to be head injury as well. Hence, there appears to be loss of income for a brief period of at least 6 months. Since the applicant was a driver of the heavy vehicle, looking to the undisputed injury which has been reflected from the medical evidence, it transpires that the appellant has taken the treatment for about three months, such finding has not been assailed by the concerned insurance company and as such, when that be so, the actual loss of income deserves to be determined for six months, which comes to Rs.5,400/-. 6.5. Insofar as pain, shock and suffering issue is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.7,000/- though the record levels that initially the appellant was admitted in the hospital at Rajpipla, but thereafter on account of situation, he was transferred to SSG Hospital, Vadodara where the appellant has remained unconscious for about 8 days and was operated on the right leg and plaster was also applied. With regard to said treatment, the record indicates that the documents are well supported vide Exhibit-50, Exhibit-51, Exhibit-52, Exhibit-53 as well as Exhibit-65 and Exhibit-66. With regard to said treatment, the record indicates that the documents are well supported vide Exhibit-50, Exhibit-51, Exhibit-52, Exhibit-53 as well as Exhibit-65 and Exhibit-66. These documents are also indicating that not only the applicant was having a fracture and was operated on his right leg, but had also sustained head injury, other injuries on various parts of the body and thus treatment was meted out to him and then was shifted to new place at Jamnagar in which also he had taken treatment in Irwin Hospital and about such treatment at Jamnagar also consultation has taken place with Dr. Harendra Pandya as well as Dr. D.K. Faliya which record is also produced at Exhibit-54 and the record has indicated that actual treatment has taken place for about three months. So when that be so, when such kind of agony and suffering had been undergone by the appellant an amount of Rs.7,000/- which has been awarded is too meager and as such, this Court is of the opinion that Rs.20,000/- would be considered as just and reasonable compensation on this head. With respect to attendant charges, a lump sum amount which has been awarded of Rs.3,000/- deserves to be assessed at Rs.5,000/- whereas, regarding medical expenses since it is based upon documentary evidence, the Court is not inclined to disturb the said amount which has been awarded under the medical expenditure head. 7. So far as actual loss of income as already indicated hereinabove, the reasonable amount of compensation comes to Rs.52,432/- and in considered opinion of this Court, same can be said to be a just and reasonable amount of compensation. Hence, qua that, the order dated 20.09.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified. 8. While arriving at such conclusion, the Court has also considered the proposition propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 as well as in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, a case is made out by the appellant for seeking enhancement of compensation then what has been awarded. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed, which would meet the ends of justice. 9.1. First Appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, a case is made out by the appellant for seeking enhancement of compensation then what has been awarded. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed, which would meet the ends of justice. 9.1. First Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant – original claimant would be entitled to get an amount of Rs.52,432/- by way of additional amount of compensation then what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the order dated 20.09.2005. 9.2. The said additional amount of compensation is directed to be deposited by the respondent – Insurance Company i.e. United Insurance Co. Ltd., with interest @ 6% per annum with proportionate cost from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization with the concerned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9.3. Upon such deposit, the appellant claimant is entitled to withdraw the same and the same would be distributed through RTGS, after due verification. Rest of the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal is unaltered. The court fee if any, to be paid by the appellant within four weeks, failing which it is to be deposited by the Insurance Company. 10. Registry is directed to transmit back R & P of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.