JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. The present Appeal is filed by the appellant-original claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2013 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 2019 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.3,49,830/-. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that, the accident took place on 17.11.2009 at about 1.30 p.m. in the noon hours on National Highway No. 8 in the sim of village Hariyala, Opp. Hotel Mayuri. On the date of accident, the victims were riding on the Motor Cycle bearing registration No. GJ-7-AL-8048 and going to Ahmedabad from Kheda. The said Motor Cycle was being driven by the appellant herein and one Atulbhai Chimanbhai Misti was the pillion rider. The appellant was driving the Motor cycle in moderate speed and on its correct side, but when they were passing through the place of incident, the driver of the Tanker bearing registration No. GJ-4- T-9282 came in rash and negligent manner, in excessive speed and suddenly took a turn from new Express-way, and dashed with the Motor Cycle. Due to the impact, the riders of the Motor Cycle sustained injuries on their various parts of the body. Hence, the appellant-original claimant has filed M.A.C.P. No. 2019 of 2009 before the Tribunal claiming Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.3,49,830/- under the different heads as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. It came to be held by the Tribunal that said amount was ordered to be awarded to the appellant-original claimant. Not being satisfied with the compensation amount, this appeal has been filed by the claimant. 4. Heard Mr.Paresh M. Darji, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Palak H. Thakkar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3-The New India Insurance Company Limited. 5. Mr.Paresh M. Darji, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. 4. Heard Mr.Paresh M. Darji, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Palak H. Thakkar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3-The New India Insurance Company Limited. 5. Mr.Paresh M. Darji, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. He further submitted that though the doctor, who has treated the injured and given certificate, has been examined by the original claimant before the Tribunal and the medical certificate with regard to the operation performed by Dr.Ghanshyam Sodha at Ami Multi-speciality Hospital, where the claimant had incurred expenditure of Rs.65,000/- towards medical bill and bill of Rs.1,35,000/- issued by Yogi Kripa Medi Chem Pvt. Ltd for medicines, etc., the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for these two disputed bills. Mr.Darji has strongly referred and relied upon the deposition of both the doctors namely, Dr.Nirav M. Prajapati (Exh.33) and Dr.Ghanshyam Sodha (Exh.37) and also relied upon the medical bills (Exh.38) and the certificate of Ami Multispeciality Hospital (Exh.39) and has prayed that the amount qua both the medical bills ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal. He also submitted that the Tribunal has also not applied proper multiplier looking to the age of the claimant at the time of accident and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and the same is required to be modified. He also further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly determined the income of the injured while awarding the amount of compensation as per the legal pronouncement and settled legal principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court and hence, the Tribunal has committed an error on all other grounds raised in the memo of appeal and has sought modification of the impugned judgment and award and enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, Mr.Palak H. Thakkar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-New India Insurance Company Limited has strongly objected the present Appeal and has objected the medical bills which is under challenge. Mr.Thakkar further submitted that from the deposition of both the doctors, it clearly reveals and reflects that the claimant was operated for his arthritis and subsequent development due to arthritis and it was not resultant effect of the accidental injury and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly discarded the evidence and passed the impugned judgment and award. Mr.Thakkar further submitted that from the deposition of both the doctors, it clearly reveals and reflects that the claimant was operated for his arthritis and subsequent development due to arthritis and it was not resultant effect of the accidental injury and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly discarded the evidence and passed the impugned judgment and award. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and there is no reason to enhance the amount of compensation and hence, the appeal is required to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and considered the facts of the case and perused the record and proceedings. I have also perused the evidence of both the doctors, more particularly, from the cross-examination of both the doctors it reveals that the claimant was suffering from the problem of arthritis due to his aging and even in future also he would have to undergo further operation due to arthritis and the operation which was carried out by Dr.Sodha was because of arthritis and not because of injuries sustained due to accident. This doctor has also admitted before the Tribunal that in future also the claimant would have to undergo further surgery for such ailment because it is a continuous process. I have also considered the materials on record and original documentary evidence which is produced before the Tribunal. I have also examined and gone through the evidence led by the appellant before the Tribunal. 7.1 At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the depositions of both the doctors before the Tribunal. The deposition of Dr.Nirav M. Prajapati (Exh.33) is as under: “(2) Due to onset of arthritis in his right hip, he will have to undergo a total hip replacement in his right hip in future. In my opinion, it may cost about one and half to two lakh rupees. (3) It is true that I did not give any treatment to the patient. When the patient came to me, he brought the papers of the last treatment received from a physiotherapist. He did not bring any papers of Ami Hospital. The witness states that, he brought only an injury certificate of Ami Hospital. (3) It is true that I did not give any treatment to the patient. When the patient came to me, he brought the papers of the last treatment received from a physiotherapist. He did not bring any papers of Ami Hospital. The witness states that, he brought only an injury certificate of Ami Hospital. It is not true that the weight-bearing ability of my left leg compared to that of my right leg stated by me in my certificate is false. It is true that, a patient suffering from arthritis experiences a difficulty in walking. I agree with a fact that, an operation of hip replacement as stated by me in my examination-in-chief requires to be performed due to arthritis. It is true that, when I examined the patient, all the fractures of the injuries sustained by him were united. I agree with a fact that, the 39% permanent disability mentioned by me in my certificate constitutes to half if considered for a whole body.” 7.2 The deposition of Dr.Ghanshyam Sodha (Exh.37) is as under: “(1) I have been working as a Medical Practitioner and running a hospital for last six and half years. (2) Patient Chandreshbhai Jashbhai Patel was admitted to my hospital for treatment after sustaining injuries in accident on 17/11/2009. I gave him a treatment and performed necessary operations. Bill No. 520 in the medical bills produced vide Mark-23/5 is a final bill given by me towards a payment of Rs.43,960 made by the patient to me. I have provided its receipt also. The bills of the medicines bought as per the prescription by the patient from an outdoor store, are produced vide Mark-23/5. I am being shown Mark-23/5. All the bills in it are the same which were prescribed by me to the patient. It is in my hand-writing and bears my signature. Mark-23/5 is given Exhibit-38. A detailed certificate with respect to a fact that the patient will have to undergo an operation in future and the same will cost him rupees two lakh, is produced vide Mark-23/2. It is in my hand-writing. It bears my signature and seal. The date of accident has been mentioned as 17/11/2010 instead of 17/11/2009 in this certificate by a slip of pen. It is given Exhibit-39. Cross-examination: The Opponent No. 1 and 2 are called up. They are not present. Cross-examination for the Opponent No. 3: Ld. Adv. It is in my hand-writing. It bears my signature and seal. The date of accident has been mentioned as 17/11/2010 instead of 17/11/2009 in this certificate by a slip of pen. It is given Exhibit-39. Cross-examination: The Opponent No. 1 and 2 are called up. They are not present. Cross-examination for the Opponent No. 3: Ld. Adv. Shri H.C. Kandoi (3) I pay an income-tax. We maintain account of the cases of each patient's treatment by maintaining a patient wise case separately. We show the income earned from the patients in this way separately in income-tax. I have shown the amount of Rs.43,960/- received from the present petitioner in income-tax. I am ready to produce my income-tax return. (4) It is true that, the patient may or may not have to undergo the operation in future. It is not true that, I have issued a letter dated 16/03/2012 to the patient to help him to get more compensation as he has received treatment from me. The patient came to me on 16/03/2012. The witness voluntarily states that, the patient was suffering from a pain. I examined him and got his X-ray done. It is true that, after 16/03/2012, the patient has never come to me again till date. It is true that, I cannot state about the present condition of the patient. The witness states that, I can state it by examining the patient. (5) When the patient was given a treatment, there was no medical store in my hospital. The witness states that, the patient was buying medicines from an outdoor store. It is not true that, there is no possibility of the patient developing any complication which may require him to undergo the operation in future.” 7.3 After considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that so far as the medical expenditure incurred by the appellant is concerned, the operation of his hip-joint was due to arthritis and therefore, the medical bills of Rs.65,000/- and Rs.1,35,000/- ought not to have been considered and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error. So far as the amount awarded towards pain, shock and suffering is concerned, the same is required to be enhanced considering the age of the claimant at the time of accident and the medical treatment to be obtained for a longer period. So far as the amount awarded towards pain, shock and suffering is concerned, the same is required to be enhanced considering the age of the claimant at the time of accident and the medical treatment to be obtained for a longer period. It is also to be noted herein that the Tribunal has committed an error while applying the multiplier and therefore, also the same is deserved to be modified. Considering all these aspects, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent. 8. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the compensation is to be awarded just and adequate and for that the principles enumerated in the said judgments is required to be born in mind at the time of determining the amount of compensation. Hence, considering all the above aspects and after going through the record and proceedings, the appeal requires to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award requires to be substituted by enhancing the amount of compensation and, therefore, the compensation is enhanced under the following heads: Particulars Amount Future Loss of Income Rs. 8,000/- x 19% = Rs. 1,520/- x 12 x 13 multiplier Rs. 2,37,120/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 35,000/- Medical bills Rs. 1,13,190/- Special Diet Rs. 10,000/- Actual Loss Rs. 16,000/- Total Rs. 4,11,310/- Compensation awarded (-) Rs. 3,49,830/- Amount to be enhanced Rs. 61,480/- 8.1 Accordingly a sum of Rs.61,480/- as additional compensation requires to be awarded towards future loss of income, which is just and reasonable compensation and the same is awarded in addition to Rs.3,49,830/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the appellants are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.61,480/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization of the amount. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed in part. However, the appellants are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.61,480/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization of the amount. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Judgment and award dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Kheda at Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No. 2019 of 2009 is hereby modified and in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.61,480/- as additional amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded which shall be from the date of filing claim petition till date of its realization. (iii) The New India Insurance Company is directed to deposit additional amount of compensation with 6% interest as early as possible within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (iv) The apportionment and order for disbursement as made by the Tribunal in the operative portion of the order shall hold good for the additional amount of compensation. (v) After deposit of the additional amount of compensation, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant through RTGS, after proper verification. The bank account details shall be furnished by the learned advocate for the claimant to the Nazir Department of the Court concerned. (vi) The appellant is directed to pay deficit court fees, if any, on the enhanced amount within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.