JUDGMENT : VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. 2. By way of present appeal, the appellant herein is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.618 of 2015. 3. The brief facts as stated by the appellant - original claimant germane for adjudication of the present appeal reads thus :- 3.1 That the appellant was traveling in the Rickshaw No.GJ-07-YY-4034 of the ownership of respondent no.2 on 19.02.2015, at 08:30 p.m., on the Khatraj Chokdi to Mankva Road, it reached at road on eastern side of Bhoi Underpass, the driver – respondent No.1 herein, the driver of the rickshaw of the ownership of respondent no.2 drove rickshaw rashly and negligently at full speed and dashed it with a motorcycle, lost control over rickshaw and rickshaw turned turtle. The appellant - original applicant sustained injury in right eye, serious fracture on the parietal region of the head and several minor – major injuries on other parts of the body and the appellant - original applicant was admitted to Amit and Parth Hospital at Nadiad, where the appellant - original applicant availed treatment as an indoor patient for many days and presently, the appellant - original applicant is availing treatment as outdoor patient. Therefore, the appellant - original applicant has sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the pain he underwent. 4. The Tribunal framed the following issues which read thus :- "1. Whether the applicant proves that, he sustained injuries because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to get compensation? If yes, what amount and from whom? 3. What order and award?" 5. The said issues came to be decided in affirmative and in favour of the appellant herein. 6. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nadiad in MACP No.618 of 2015. Mr. The said issues came to be decided in affirmative and in favour of the appellant herein. 6. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nadiad in MACP No.618 of 2015. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal has committed error by considering the income of the appellant as Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.6,500/- per month as the appellant was working as agriculture labourer before the date of accident. The learned Tribunal ought to have relied upon the schedule of minimum wage to confirm the monthly income of the deceased in absence of income proof to allow just compensation. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by not allowing any amount under the head of future prospective income. The learned Tribunal ought to have allowed 50% future prospective income considering that the appellant as sustained 40% permanent disability due to the unfortunate accident. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant further submitted that the age of the appellant was 26 years on the date of accident. The learned Tribunal has committed error by considering the disability of the appellant as 35% for the calculation of Future Economic Loss. 7. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate submitted that the prospective income is required to be added to the tune of 40%. Pain, Shock and Suffering - Rs.10,000/- enhancing to Rs.55,000/- (in column No.2). No change in Medical Expenses i.e. Rs.5,000/-. Special diet, Transportation and Attendance charges - Rs.7,500/- is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (i.e. Rs.25,000/- - Rs.7,500/- = Rs.17,500/-). Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant herein also submitted that the appellant herein is aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal to the tune of Rs.3,98,500/- and has prayed for enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- on the following grounds :- (a) The prospective income is required to be added to the tune of 40%. (b) Rs. 10,000/- granted towards Pain, Shock and Suffering is required to be enhanced to Rs.55,000/- (c) Special Diet, Attendance and Transportation charges granted by the Tribunal at Rs.7500/- be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. 8. Ms. (b) Rs. 10,000/- granted towards Pain, Shock and Suffering is required to be enhanced to Rs.55,000/- (c) Special Diet, Attendance and Transportation charges granted by the Tribunal at Rs.7500/- be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. 8. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company was not in a position to controvert the submissions advanced by Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant - original applicant. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Considering the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq and Others Versus Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2012 ACJ 627, relevant paragraphs 17, 19, 20 reads thus :- "17. The appellant/claimant in this appeal has sustained type -3 compound fracture of right femur, fracture of tibia, fracture of middle shaft tibia and fibula. The injuries sustained and the treatment taken by the appellant/claimant are evident from discharge card Exh. P225, photographs marked as Exhs. P227 to P234, disability certificate marked as Exh. P236, X-ray films Exh. P574 supported by the oral evidence of the claimant and the doctor examined as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively. PW-4 Dr. Rajesh had stated in his evidence that the appellant/claimant has suffered from permanent disability of 69 per cent to lower limb. The High Court has taken his functional disability at 25 per cent. However, while determining the disability of the claimants in motor accidents cases, this Court might be sensitive about the functional disability involved and the nature of the occupation, particularly, if the occupation involves manual labour. Therefore, we hold that the High Court erred in determining the functional disability of the appellant in the present appeal on the lower side. Since, the appellant/claimant in the present appeal is also a vegetable vendor like the appellant/claimant in Civil Appeal M.F.A. 1131 of 2011, we take his monthly income at Rs.6,500/- on average and for the reasons recorded in that appeal, we determine the functional disability of the appellant/claimant in the present appeal at 35 per cent. Considering his age, and based on the legal principle laid down by this Court in the cases mentioned supra, we hold his increment on future income at 50 per cent and the multiplier at 18. Considering his age, and based on the legal principle laid down by this Court in the cases mentioned supra, we hold his increment on future income at 50 per cent and the multiplier at 18. Therefore, he is entitled to Rs.7,37,100/- [(Rs.6,500 x 35/100 + 50/100 x 35/100 x Rs.6,500) x 12 x18] under the head of ‘loss of future income’. 19. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation under the following heads: Towards pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- Towards medical and incidental charges Rs.1,00,000/- Towards loss of amenities Rs.40,000/- Towards future medical expenses Rs.15,000/- Towards cost of litigation Rs.25,000/- 20. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total sum of Rs.9,77,100/- with interest @ 9% per annum based on the principle laid down by this Court mentioned supra." 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective sides and considering the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above, this Court deems it fit to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by Rs.2,16,300/-, considering the disability at 35% adding prospective income to the tune of 40%, future loss of income is enhanced to Rs.4,99,800/- (Rs,4,99,800/- - Rs.3,57,000/- = Rs.1,42,800), Pain, Shock and Suffering is enhanced to Rs, 75,000/-, Special Diet, attendance, transpiration is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. 11. This Court deems it fit to enhance the compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.3,98,500/- to Rs.6,14,800 i.e. enhance the compensation by Rs.2,16,300/- as referred above. For the sake of brevity this Court is inclined to produced the table and granting enhancement amount as follows:- Sr.No. Details Rupees Modified amount 1 Future Loss of Income Rs.3,57,000/- Rs.4,99,800/- 2 Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.75,000/- 3 Medical Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 4 Special Diet, Transportation and Attendance Charges Rs.7,500/- Rs.25,000/- 5 Actual Loss of Income Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.3,98,500/- Rs.6,14,800/- Difference Amount of Rs.2,16,300/- 12. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the judgment and decree passed by the learned tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant - original applicant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,16,300/- at the rate of 6% interest from the date of application till its realisation before the concerned Tribunal. The additional amount of compensation as referred above shall be deposited by the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company before the tribunal within a period of Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The said additional amount shall thereafter be disbursed by the tribunal in favour of the appellant - original applicant after proper verification and undergoing the requisite procedure. 13. The present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.618 of 2015 is modified to the aforesaid extent. 14. Record and Proceedings, if received, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court, Forthwith.