JUDGMENT : 1. This First Appeal is preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment and award dated 31.08.2020 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.15 of 2016 by the 3rd MACT, Limbdi district Surendranagar, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.5,50,380/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. 2. The Brief facts leading to the case are as follows: 2.1 On 03.12.2015 at about 7:45 p.m. in the evening, the appellant herein was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle being driven by respondent No.4 herein. The accident occurred due to a car which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and which rammed into the said motorcycle from behind due to which the appellant received serious injuries. 2.2 The appellant suffered fracture of skull, sever bleeding, fracture in right leg and in the right feet. After getting medical treatment and undergoing operations, the appellant suffered permanent disability. 2.3 Aggrieved the appellant preferred MACP No.15 of 2016 praying for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal issue summons. The parties appeared and led evidence in support of their case. After assessing the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation of Rs.5,50,380/- with interest @ 9% per annum. 2.4 Aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month. She submits that the appellant was a tailor by profession and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed a reasonable amount towards monthly income. In any case, the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is even less than the minimum wages as prescribed for a skilled worker since the appellant was a tailor by profession. 4. She further submits that it is also brought on record that after the accident, the appellant is left with disability of 88.5%. 33.5% towards the disability in the hand and leg and 55% disability towards neurological injuries as per the disability certificates produced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. 4. She further submits that it is also brought on record that after the accident, the appellant is left with disability of 88.5%. 33.5% towards the disability in the hand and leg and 55% disability towards neurological injuries as per the disability certificates produced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. She submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the disability in total instead of assessing the same at 47% as accepted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company in the Tribunal. 5. She further submits that even on the other counts like pain, shock, suffering attendance, Special diet, transportation, etc, the amounts awarded to the appellant is abysmally low and ought to be enhanced. She submits that the income of the appellant should be held at least as that of skilled worker prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act in absence of any cogent evidence. 6. Per contra, Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.5 -Insurance Company submits that the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. She submits that in absence of any evidence brought on record with respect to monthly income being earned by the appellant, the amount of monthly income as assessed at Rs.3,000/- for the tailoring job is just and proper. She submits that even on the other heads, it has come on record that the appellant has undergone treatment as indoor patient for 18 days, and therefore, the compensation as awarded under the various heads are also just and proper and that the impugned judgment and award need not be interfered with and the First Appeal be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record as well as the Record & Proceedings of the case. 8. In the present case, it is not disputed that the appellant was a tailor by profession and earning his income by doing tailoring job. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month without assessing any specific reasons. 8. In the present case, it is not disputed that the appellant was a tailor by profession and earning his income by doing tailoring job. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month without assessing any specific reasons. This Court is of the opinion that in absence of any evidence on record with respect to monthly income being earned by the appellant, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income as per the Minimum Wages Act as applicable to a skilled worker and as per the minimum wages as declared by the Assistant Labour Commissioner Government of Gujarat. The minimum wages as payable to a skilled worker was Rs.7,886/- per month at the time of accident. Rounding of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the monthly income of the injured appellant be assessed at Rs.8,000/- per month which be just and proper as he was doing tailoring work. Xxxxx 10. In the present case, the appellant has suffered disability of 47%,. Therefore, assessing the loss of future prospects, the income of the appellant would be Rs.10,000/- per month. Applying appropriate multiplier and the disability incurred, the amount of the compensation towards future loss of income would come to Rs.7,89,600/-. Rounding of the same, it can be held to be Rs.8,00,000/-. Since the appellant has suffered skull fracture as well as fracture at the hand and leg, the compensation towards pain, shock and suffering is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and the compensation towards attendance, special diet and transportation costs are also enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Learned Tribunal has correctly awarded all the medical bills as incurred at Rs.2,87,500/- as per the bills produced. 11. Adding above mentioned amounts, the appellant is entitled for the following compensation: Sr.No. Head Amount A Towards compensation towards future loss of income Rs.8,00,000/- B Towards actual loss of income (for two months) Rs.16,000/- C Towards medical expenses Rs.2,87,500/- D Towards pain, shock and suffering Rs.25,000/- E Towards attendance, special diet and transportation Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.11,53,500/- 12. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the just and proper compensation in the present case is Rs.11,53,500/-. The amount of compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal along with interest is confirmed. The appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.6,03,120/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The amount of compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal along with interest is confirmed. The appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.6,03,120/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The respondent No.5 is directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Upon depositing of such additional compensation, the learned Tribunal is directed to release the entire amount of compensation within a period of three weeks thereafter upon following the due procedure and after due verification. 13. Accordingly the First Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Record and proceedings of the case, if any, be remitted back to the learned Tribunal.