JUDGMENT : SANDEEP N. BHATT, J. 1. The present First Appeal is filed by the present appellant-original claimant, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1487 of 1992, by which, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 33,789/- with 9% interest per annum to the claimant, from the date of presentation of petition upto 31.12.2000 and thereafter 7.5% p.a. interest until its realisation. Therefore, the present appeal is for enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that, on 15.06.1992, the appellant-claimant was going on the motorcycle as pillion rider for his work place and his friend viz. Rakesh Bhatt was driving the motorcycle slowly and carefully, one tempo bearing registration No. GJ-7-T-9930 came with full speed with rash and negligent manner near Village: Ganavi and dashed with the motorcycle. As a result, the appellant sustained serious injuries. He was initially taken to the hospital at Godhra and thereafter at Vadodara where he was treated as indoor patient. Permanent disability has been caused to him. The appellant lodged complaint for the same before the Godhra Taluka Police Station being C.R.I. No. 178 of 1992. The appellant has therefore filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has issued notices to the respondents-driver, owner and insurance company of the tempo. The Insurance Company has denied the facts of the case and requested to dismiss the claim petition. The Tribunal has framed the issues and after taking into consideration all the evidence-documentary as well as oral and after considering the submissions made by the rival parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation as stated hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal before this Court by the appellant-original claimant for enhancement. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Kharadi for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the claimant was pillion rider on the motorcycle which dashed with the Tempo. The Tribunal has held that the driver of the motorcycle is 40% negligent for the accident. Therefore, the contributory negligence is also considered to the extent 40% which is erroneous and perverse. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Kharadi for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the claimant was pillion rider on the motorcycle which dashed with the Tempo. The Tribunal has held that the driver of the motorcycle is 40% negligent for the accident. Therefore, the contributory negligence is also considered to the extent 40% which is erroneous and perverse. He has submitted that the Tribunal has also held in merely considering the fact that the claimant has not impleaded the owner and insurance company of the motorcycle and therefore also, the negligence should be attributed to the claimant which, in his submissions, is totally erroneous and illegal in view of the decision of Khenyei vs. New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 273 . He has submitted that the claimant being a third party as a pillion rider, it is a case of composite negligence and not contributory negligent and therefore, the claimant can claim an amount of compensation from any of the tortfeasors. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the finding that the contributory negligence of 40% should be of pillion rider i.e. the claimant. 3.2 Further, on the aspect of quantum, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the claimant has shown his monthly income in the claim petition and the same is proved by the oral evidence of the Contractor - Madhavsinh Kalyansinh Solanki at Exh.43 with whom he was working and who was supported the claim of the claimant that the claimant was earning Rs. 2,500/- p.m. towards salary in the year 1992 (the accident was occurred on 15.06.1992), however the Tribunal has, without giving any cogent and convincing reasons, considered Rs. 800/- as monthly income of the applicant. The Tribunal has added 50% towards prospective income and therefore, the monthly income was worked out to Rs. 1,200/- which is erroneous and as per the say of the workman, Rs. 2,500/- per month should be considered as monthly income and 40% should be added in view of the decision reported in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Shethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 towards prospective income and therefore, it would come to Rs. 3,500/- per month with prospective income. He has submitted that since the parties have agreed to consider disability of 20%, he will not stretch it more, otherwise, from the deposition of Dr. 3,500/- per month with prospective income. He has submitted that since the parties have agreed to consider disability of 20%, he will not stretch it more, otherwise, from the deposition of Dr. Yogendrasinh at Exh.26, the disability should be considered as 30%, but in view of agreement arrived at by the parties before the Tribunal, he is not pressing the said contention before this Court any further. He has also submitted that the amount of Rs. 7,500/- awarded towards pain, shock and suffering is on very lower side, which should be atleast on higher side. He has submitted that attendance and transportation charges are also on the lower side and he has relied on the decision in the case of Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir, (2015) 7 SCC 252 and submitted that the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering, attendance and transportation charges may be awarded more than which is awarded. He has submitted that the multiplier which is applied by the Tribunal is 15, which should be 18 looking to the age of the appellant. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar for the Insurance Company has initially supported the judgment and award impugned, but when specifically query was asked by the Court about the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding 40% contributory negligence of the pillion rider, she has fairly submitted that this finding is incorrect. She has submitted that the amount of pain, shock and suffering, attendance and transportation charges, which are considered by the Tribunal looking to the hospitalization and disability received by the claimant, is found just and proper and no interference is required in it. She has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income though in the deposition of the Contractor, it is stated as Rs. 2,500/- but no documentary evidence like account books, etc., were produced on record. Therefore, she has submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error on the aspect of quantum and therefore, the amount of quantum is just and proper and no interference is required in the impugned judgment. She has submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was about 23 years old and therefore, 15 multiplier is rightly calculated by the Tribunal. She has submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 5.1 I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties. She has submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was about 23 years old and therefore, 15 multiplier is rightly calculated by the Tribunal. She has submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 5.1 I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the record and proceedings of the case. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. On the issue of contributory negligence, the Tribunal has given finding by attributing the negligence to 40% to the pillion rider of the motorcycle, who is the present appellant, is totally erroneous and perverse. The principles of contributory negligence can be applied to the driver of the vehicles only and not for the pillion rider. The pillion rider can be considered as third party for both the vehicles. For the pillion rider, the case can be considered as composite negligence and accordingly, in view of the decision in the case of Khenyel (supra), the claimant can choose the party to receive the compensation in the case of composite negligence from any of the tortfeasors. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal by apportioning the liability by 40% qua the present appellant is erroneous and required to be interfered with. I therefore found that it is open for the claimant to recover the amount of compensation from the present respondents and it is clarified that the respondent No. 3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited may recover the amount of 40% liability of motorcyclist, in accordance with law. 5.2 Now, considering the other aspects about awarding compensation, where it is also found that the Tribunal has committed grave error as it has not given convincing reasons for reducing the amount of monthly income from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 800/- though there is deposition of the Contractor-Madhavsinh Kalyansinh Solanki at Exh.43, who has supported the case of the claimant. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve it and more particularly, the pleadings and proof should be considered liberally in the case of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. That view is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Anita Sharma vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2020 (1) SCC 171 and therefore, I found that monthly income of the claimant should be considered as Rs. 2,500/- instead of Rs. 800/- and 40% should be added towards loss of income. That view is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Anita Sharma vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2020 (1) SCC 171 and therefore, I found that monthly income of the claimant should be considered as Rs. 2,500/- instead of Rs. 800/- and 40% should be added towards loss of income. 5.3 Further, it is an undisputed fact that the age of the appellant at the relevant point of time is 23 years and therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , multiplier of 18 should be applicable. Therefore, considering the disability as 20%, the amount towards reduction of earning capacity of the claimant is Rs. 700/- so annually it would come to Rs. 8,400/- which can be multiplied with 18 multiplier, it would come to Rs. 1,51,200/- towards future loss of income. The claimant might have taken treatment for a long period and also had taken rest as advised and also considering the judgment in the case of Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir (supra) where the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- for pain, shock and suffering is awarded. In the present case, I found that it would be deem fit to award Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. The Tribunal has assessed the actual loss of income for two months, which should be Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 1,600/-. The attendance and transportation charges is also found on lower side. I found that Rs. 20,000/- towards attendance charges and Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation charges can be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, Rs. 1,51,200/- plus Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering plus Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant charges plus Rs. 10,000/- towards transporation plus Rs. 5,000/- towards actual loss of income plus Rs. 2,500/- towards medical expense, which total comes to Rs. 2,38,700/- would be the amount which is payable to the claimant with interest. Accordingly, I enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,38,700 minus Rs. 33,780/- (which is awarded by the Tribunal), so total comes to Rs. 2,04,920/- is the enhanced amount. 5,000/- towards actual loss of income plus Rs. 2,500/- towards medical expense, which total comes to Rs. 2,38,700/- would be the amount which is payable to the claimant with interest. Accordingly, I enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,38,700 minus Rs. 33,780/- (which is awarded by the Tribunal), so total comes to Rs. 2,04,920/- is the enhanced amount. Accordingly, respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same before the concerned Tribunal from the date of filing claim petition till its realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, which will meet the ends of justice. 6. In view of above, the following order is passed. 6.1 The present First Appeal is partly allowed. 6.2 The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation as observed hereinabove of Rs. 2,04,920/- with 9% interest per annum to the claimant, from the date of presentation of petition upto 31.12.2000 and thereafter 7.5% p.a. interest until its realisation. 6.3 It is ordered that respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally deposit the enhanced amount of compensation as observed hereinabove to the tune of Rs. 2,04,920/- with 9% interest per annum to the claimant, from the date of presentation of petition upto 31.12.2000 and thereafter 7.5% p.a. interest until its realisation, before the concerned Claims Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6.4 Since the appellant has preferred the appeal for enhancement of Rs. 1,50,000/- and therefore, while making the payment as above, the Tribunal is directed to deduct the deficit courts fees, in accordance with law. 6.5 The Tribunal is directed to pay the entire amount to the claimant by account payee cheque, after due verification and after following due procedure. 6.6 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.