JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 17.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (Main) Surat, in Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP 2. The brief facts of the present case are as under that: 2.1 It is alleged that on 23.11.2012 at 11:15 hours at night, when the respondent No.1 was travelling by a car driven by respondent No.2, a truck came from opposite side with full lights, and therefore, the driver lost control and collided with the neem tree resulting into injuries to the claimant being fracture of the knee and left femur. Accordingly, he had to undergo medical treatment and it is claimed that he has suffered 35% disability in the left leg. 2.2 The claimant respondent No.1 has filed a claim for taking 8,00,000/- under various heads along with costs and interest by preferring the Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.439 of 2013, in MACT (Main) Surat. 2.3 The respondent No.1 claimant has claimed that he was getting a salary of Rs.9,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as commission, and therefore, he was earning a total Rs.12,000/- per month by doing marketing job. In support of his claim, he has produced appointment letter issued by one IKYA Company, which shows that the claimant was offered a salary of Rs.8,837/- per month. 2.4 The appellant-Insurance Company and other opponents appeared in the MACP Case and refuted the claim of the respondent No.1. The parties led evidence in support of the claim and the contentions. 2.5 By impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2018, the learned MACT, Surat was pleased to allow the claim of the respondent No.1 herein and held that the respondent No.1-claimant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.5,62,000/- with proportionate cost and interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the claim petition till realization from the opponents jointly and severally. 2.6 It was further directed that after deductions 70% amount shall be invested in FDR in the name of the claimant in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years and the remaining 30% amount shall be paid to the claimant by way of Account Payee Cheque, after due verification. 2.7 Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the Insurance Company herein has preferred the present First Appeal before this Court. 3. Ms. 2.7 Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the Insurance Company herein has preferred the present First Appeal before this Court. 3. Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has totally misread the evidence with respect to the income of the claimant. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has misread Exhibit 39 and 41 to hold it as a salary certificate and appointment letter respectively. However, the same is not so. A perusal of the original documents on record would reveal that what has been produced by the claimant respondent No.1 is the appointment letter along with Annexure detailing out the monthly compensation which would be given to him, in case, he accepts the appointment. 4. She submits that no evidence has been brought on record by the claimant with respect to his monthly income. She submits that though he has claimed an income of Rs.12,000/- being Rs.9,000/- from service and Rs.3,000/- as commission, no cogent evidence has been brought on record for the said amount. In the deposition, the claimant has also accepted that there is no evidence brought on record with respect to his monthly earning of Rs.12,000/-. She submits that no another document has been placed on record in support of his salary or income except the appointment letter along with the Annexure. She submits that it has not been brought on record whether the claimant-respondent No.1 had accepted the said offer and joined the Company. She, therefore, submits that in absence of any cogent evidence with respect to the income of the claimant, the income should have been calculated on the basis of rates of minimum wages as prevalent in the State of Gujarat for the skilled worker. She submits that as per the Minimum Wages Act for the Skilled (A) Category Worker, as on the date of accident, it was Rs.5,180/- per month. She submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the claimant-respondent No.1 @ Rs.8,757/- on the basis of an offer letter for appointment. 5. She submits that by no strech of imagination exhibit 39 can be held as a salary certificate as it is annexure to the appointment letter. She submits that this is a case where the person has been injured and some disability has been suffered. 5. She submits that by no strech of imagination exhibit 39 can be held as a salary certificate as it is annexure to the appointment letter. She submits that this is a case where the person has been injured and some disability has been suffered. She submits that in the present case, it has come on record by way of evidence that the claimant is able to do all his normal daily course and as per his own deposition, the claimant can walk and move around. She, therefore, submits that the disability as held by the learned Tribunal at 35% is not proper and correct and the same should be at the most taken at 17.5%. 6. She submits that doctor whose disability certificate has been submitted in support of the disability claim has himself stated in his deposition that the said certificate is not in accordance with the format which is required under the Rules for issuance of the disability certificate, and therefore, the said disability certificate cannot be taken into account to assess the disability of the claimant-respondent No.1. She submits that looking at the deposition of the claimant that he is able to do his normal course and that the medical evidence shows that he has suffered fracture in the thigh and in the knee cap, the disability would be minimum or negligible. She therefore, submits that in absence of any other disability evidence on record, the same should be taken at 50% of what has been assessed i.e. 17.5%. 7. The learned advocate for the Insurance Company does not dispute the amount awarded under pain, shock and suffering, transportation, attendant charges and special diet. 8. Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing for the claimant-respondent No.1 submits that the claimant respondent No.1 has produced enough cogent evidence on record to show that he had secured job with a monthly salary of Rs.8,837/-. It is further submitted that the claimant was also earning additionally Rs.3,000/- per month from commission through DOCOMO Company. 9. He further submits that the claimant could not produce any salary sheet for the reason that the accident had occurred within a month of letter of appointment being issued to him. He further submits that the claimant respondent No.1 was earning the said salary. 9. He further submits that the claimant could not produce any salary sheet for the reason that the accident had occurred within a month of letter of appointment being issued to him. He further submits that the claimant respondent No.1 was earning the said salary. He further submits that due to injury sustained by the claimant respondent No.1 in the accident, he has suffered a future loss of income by way of loss of job which is evident from the cross-examination of the claimant wherein he has stated that “it is not true that he is working”. He further submits that in view of the statement which are elicited in the cross-examination suggested and indicated that the petitioner had accepted the job in terms of the letter of appointment which he lost. He submits that since the claimant had lost his job, though there is no evidence on record, the same ought to have been assessed towards future loss of income. He would submit that no interference is called for in the impugned order and the same be upheld. 10. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. 11. It is not denied that respondent No.1-claimant has suffered injuries in an accident. The claimant has suffered fracture of thigh bone and fracture in knee cap on the left leg. It has come on record that the claimant had to undergo medical treatment for a period of three months to recover from such injuries. Though in his deposition, the claimant respondent No.1 has claimed a monthly earning of Rs.12,000/-, in the cross-examination, he admits that he has not brought any evidence on record in support of his claim with respect to monthly earnings of the amount of Rs.12,000/ per month. 12. A perusal of Exhibits 39 and 41 as relied upon by the learned Tribunal shows that Exhibit 39 is Annexure-A to the offer letter and Exhbit 41 is the appointment letter dated 19.10.2012. It is an offer for the appointment subject to acceptance. The document at Exhibit 39 is Annexure-A to the letter of appointment and is shown as “compensation sheet”. The said document only gives an estimate of the monthly salary which the employee would be getting in case, he accepts the appointment. 13. It is an offer for the appointment subject to acceptance. The document at Exhibit 39 is Annexure-A to the letter of appointment and is shown as “compensation sheet”. The said document only gives an estimate of the monthly salary which the employee would be getting in case, he accepts the appointment. 13. The learned Tribunal has erred in reading the same and relying upon the same as a salary certificate issued by the Company IKYA. The contention of Ms.Kirti Pathak learned advocate for the Insurance Company is accepted. The compensation sheet being Annexure-A to the letter of appointment cannot be termed as a salary certificate and could not have been relied upon in absence of any actual salary certificate which may have been issued to the claimant respondent No.1. For the reason best known to the respondent No.1-Claimant, he has not produced any salary certificate except the letter of appointment along with Annexure being compensation sheet. He has not examined any witness in support of his job at IKYA Company. He has not stated in his evidence that as to when and on what date, he has joined the Company on the basis of the said letter of appointment and whether he was still working in the said Company. There is no cogent evidence brought on record with respect to the monthly income of claimant-respondent No.1 by way of salary or commission as claimed. 14. In absence of such material evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the income of the claimant should be assessed in terms of the minimum wages in the State of Gujarat as prevalent during the period from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 i.e. during the time of the accident. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the income of the claimant ought to be assessed at 5,180/- per month which is as notified by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, State of Gujarat for Skilled-A Labour. Hence, the income of the claimant should be assessed as Rs.5,180/- per month. 15. Ms.Kirti Pathak, learned advocate submits that in the present case since it is admitted that the claimant is able to do his daily chores and there is no hindrance in his earning capacity, it was an error on the part of the Tribunal to award future prospects. 16. 15. Ms.Kirti Pathak, learned advocate submits that in the present case since it is admitted that the claimant is able to do his daily chores and there is no hindrance in his earning capacity, it was an error on the part of the Tribunal to award future prospects. 16. In the present case, there is neither any evidence brought on record nor it is contended that the claimant has any future loss of income with respect to his disability incurred during the accident. The disability is to the extent of having pain while climbing staris and walking long distances. In absence of any evidence and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar versus Ajay Kumar & another, in Civil Appeal No.8981 of 2010, this Court is of the view that in the present case, there is no loss of future prospect, and therefore, the same could not have been added in the income of the claimant. 17. The learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company does not dispute the actual loss for a period of three months and the amount awarded towards pain, shock and suffering and towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges. 18. In view of the above discussion, it is held that respondent No.1-claimant is entitled towards total amount of compensation computed as below: This Court has assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,180/- and if the functional disability is considered as 17.5%, then the loss of future income comes Rs.5180 x 17.5 x 12 x 16 =Rs.1,74,048/-. The claimant is also entitled to Rs.15,540/- towards actual loss of income and Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.7,500/- towards transportation, attendant charges and Special diet, a total of which comes to Rs.2,07,088/-. On rounding of, therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,07,000/- . 19. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby modified and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to total sum of Rs.2,07,000/ with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The present appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the R & P, if any, forthwith to the learned Tribunal.