JUDGMENT : NIRAL R. MEHTA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 13.3.2009 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1363 of 1999 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), 2nd Additional District Judge, Nadiad, the appellant – original claimant has preferred the present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (“the Act” for short) seeking, inter alia, enhancement of compensation. 2. The original claim of the claimant was for Rs.20,00,000/-. However, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,13,280/- with 9% interest under the various heads as under. Future loss of income Rs.4,75,320/-- Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.20,000/- Medical expenses Rs.65,000/- Attendant, Transportation, Special diet charges Rs.25,000/- Actual loss Rs.27,960/- Total Rs.6,13,280/- 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 22.12.1998 he was driving ST Bus No.GJ 18 V 3006 from Jhalod to Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. At the relevant time, driver of the truck bearing registration No.GQB 6390 was driving the said truck in rash and negligent manner and thereby dashed with the ST Bus driven by the claimant. As a result thereof, the claimant sustained serious injuries and was admitted in VS Hospital. The claimant had to undergo knee operation. However, because of injuries, right leg below knee came to be amputed. Thus, the claimant has approached the learned Tribunal by way of an application under section 166 of the Act seeking, inter alia, compensation for the injuries so received arising from the motor vehicular accident. 4. Learned Tribunal, after having considered the evidence on record, held the driver of the offending vehicle as sole responsible for the accident in question. Learned Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded to award compensation by considering the income of the claimant at Rs.2330/- per month. The injury assessed by learned Tribunal is at 100%. Learned Tribunal, having considered the age of the claimant, adopted multiplier of 17. Accordingly, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,75,320/- under the head of loss of future income. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.65,000/- under the head of medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- under the head of transportation and special diet charges, Rs.27,960/- under the head of actual loss of income. Thus, in all, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,13,280/- by way of compensation with 9% interest from the date of application till realization. 5. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.65,000/- under the head of medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- under the head of transportation and special diet charges, Rs.27,960/- under the head of actual loss of income. Thus, in all, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,13,280/- by way of compensation with 9% interest from the date of application till realization. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Mohsin Hakim for the appellant and learned advocate for Mr.Daxesh Mehta, learned advocate for the insurance company. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Hakim for the appellant submits that the award passed by learned Tribunal is on lower side and cannot be said to be just and adequate in nature. Learned advocate Mr.Hakim submitted that learned Tribunal has committed serious error in considering income of the claimant at Rs.2330/- per month, as against the salary slip produced by the appellant that shows the income at Rs.3200/- per month. Learned advocate Mr.Hakim, therefore, submitted that learned Tribunal could not have ignored such evidence. According to learned advocate Mr.Hakim, learned Tribunal has also committed an error in not considering future rise of income. To substantiate the said contention, learned advocate Mr.Hakim has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Thus, according to learned advocate Mr.Hakim, 40% prospective rise has to be considered. Learned advocate Mr.Hakim further submitted that considering injuries and keeping in mind amputation of right leg under the knee, the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering is also on lower side and it has to be at least Rs.1,00,000/-. Learned advocate Mr.Hakim lastly submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount under the head of loss of amenities of life. 8. By making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Hakim has prayed this Court to enhance the compensation adequately. 9. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the insurance company has vehemently opposed the present appeal contending that judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is perfectly justified and compensation is just and adequate in nature and thereby does not require any interference. By making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Hakim has prayed this Court to enhance the compensation adequately. 9. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the insurance company has vehemently opposed the present appeal contending that judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is perfectly justified and compensation is just and adequate in nature and thereby does not require any interference. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate, however, could not dispute the fact that income certificate shows the income of the claimant at Rs.3200/- per month issued by the ST Corporation. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate also could not dispute the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi (supra). 10. By making the above submissions, Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the insurance company has prayed this Court to pass appropriate order in the interest of justice. 11. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the concerned Tribunal. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties except what is stated hereinabove. 12. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, the short question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the award passed by learned Tribunal could be said as just and adequate ? 13. So as to decide the aforesaid question, first of all, income of the claimant deserves to be ascertained cautiously as the entire compensation is based on income of the claimant. In the present case, the claimant was undisputedly working as driver with the ST Corporation and salary slip to that effect was also produced on record at Exh.53. Therefore, in my view, ignoring such salary certificate when not disputed by the other-side, learned Tribunal could not have arrived at the conclusion that income of the claimant was Rs.2330/- per month. According to me, learned Tribunal could have accepted the said salary certificate as it is. In view of the aforesaid, I propose to consider income of the claimant at Rs.3200/- per month. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), while computing income, prospective rise in income has to be considered keeping in mind the age of the claimant. In view of the aforesaid, I propose to consider income of the claimant at Rs.3200/- per month. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), while computing income, prospective rise in income has to be considered keeping in mind the age of the claimant. In the instant case, the age of the claimant stated to be at 30 years. Thus, I propose to add 40% future rise in come. The multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal at 17 appears to be reasonable. 14. Considering the injuries, in my view, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering appears to be on very lower side. The claimant stated to have undergone three operations and thereafter amputation of right leg below knee. In such circumstances, in my view, Rs.1,00,000/- would be just and proper under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 15. Considering the age of the claimant at 30 years and keeping in mind the amputation of right leg below the knee, I propose to award Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life. 16. Considering the nature of injuries and treatment undergone, the claimant could not work for 12 months. Thus, I propose to award a sum of Rs.38,400/- under the head of actual lose of income. 17. Rest of the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal under various heads appears to be reasonable and thereby not disturbed. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is held to be not just and adequate and thereby the same deserves to be modified as under. Future loss of income Rs.9,13,920/- (Rs.3200 + 40% x 12 x 17) Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Medical expenses Rs.65,000/- Special diet, transpiration and attendant charges Rs.25,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Actual loss of income Rs.38,400/- Total Rs.11,92,320/- 19. Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.6,13,280/-. Hence, the claimant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.5,79,040/-. 20. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.5,79,040/- by way of additional amount with 6% interest from the date of application till the realization. The respondent insurance company is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,79,040/- with 6% interest within a period of 12 weeks after receipt of the copy of the order. 20. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.5,79,040/- by way of additional amount with 6% interest from the date of application till the realization. The respondent insurance company is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,79,040/- with 6% interest within a period of 12 weeks after receipt of the copy of the order. Learned Tribunal, in turn, shall disburse the same in favour of the claimant after proper verification. R & P be sent back forthwith.