JUDGMENT : MAUNA M. BHATT, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act 1988”), is filed by the appellant- Original claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 22.11.2007, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Fast Track Court No. 2, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1062 of 2004, wherein, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 7 lacs with running interest @ 7.5% from the date of claim petition till realization with proportionate cost. The Tribunal further held that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable for the payment of aforesaid compensation. 2. Following facts emerged from the record of the appeal: 2.1. That on 24.05.2004, the appellant-original claimant was travelling in a luxury Bus bearing registration No. RJ-07- P-4247. The said bus met with an accident with the Truck bearing registration No. GJ-10-V-5109. It was case of the appellant- original claimant that both the drivers i.e. driver of the luxury bus as well as the driver of the Truck, were driving their respective vehicles in rash and negligent manner. Because of rash and negligent driving, the truck dashed with the luxury bus and because of heavy impact, the bus turned turtle and many passengers along with present appellant sustained serious injuries. For the injuries sustained the appellant right limb was amputed through surgery. 2.2. In respect of the said accident, the appellant as original claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs. 20 lacs. Before the tribunal owner of the luxury bus No. RJ-07-P-4247 was joined as opponent No1, Insurance- Company of the luxury bus was joined as opponent No 2, owner of the Truck No. GJ-10-V-5109 was joined as opponent No 3 and Insurance-Company of the Truck as opponent No 4. Upon claim petition being filed notices were issued and opponents filed their respective written statements. 3. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of evidence on record decided the issues as under: (i) In relation to negligence, the Tribunal held drivers of both the vehicles (driver of luxury bus No. RJ-07-P-4247 and the driver of the Truck No. GJ-10-V-5109, equally negligent (50% - 50%) for occurrence of the accident. (ii) In relation to compensation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. (ii) In relation to compensation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 7 lacs as under: S. No. Particulars Amount 1 Towards Future Loss of Income Rs. 5,98,500/- 2 Towards Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs. 40,000/- 3 Towards Medical Expenses Rs. 20,000/- 4 Towards Special Diet Rs. 12,500/- 5 Towards Attendant loss Rs. 5,000/- 6 Towards Transportation Rs. 4,000/- 7 Towards actual loss of income Rs. 20,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 7,00,000/- The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization with proportionate cost. 4. Aggrieved by the amount of the compensation awarded, present appeal is filed by the appellant-original claimant seeking enhancement. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the appellant-original claimant, learned advocate Mr. Shashikant Gade for the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company of the luxury bus No. RJ-07-P-4247 and learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for the respondent No. 4- Insurance Company of the Truck No. GJ-10-V-5109. As liability has not been denied, presence of other respondents is not necessary and is dispensed with. The Record and Proceedings of the aforesaid appeal is secured and placed before this Court for perusal. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the appellant-original claimant submitted that the Tribunal has erred and not properly assessing the disability of the original claimant. Relying upon the disability certificate at Exh.51 as also deposition of the Doctor at Exhi-50, he submitted that as the claimant’s right limb was amputated eight inches below the shoulder, the disability assessed by the Doctor to the extent of 80% is appropriate. He further submitted that the Doctor in his deposition at Exh. 50 had clearly stated that because of his permanent disability, now the claimant would not be able to drive any vehicle and in future he is to perform all his work by his one hand and therefore, disability assessed by the Tribunal of 70% is erroneous. Considering the nature of work the appellant was doing, as he was not in a position to do work of loading-un-loading, he lost his job which amounts to 100% loss in earning capacity. Relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Nareshkumar, AIR 2020 SC 4424 , he submitted that the original claimant is entitled for future loss of income, which the Tribunal had not considered. Relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Nareshkumar, AIR 2020 SC 4424 , he submitted that the original claimant is entitled for future loss of income, which the Tribunal had not considered. He also relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Shetty, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and submitted that the tribunal had not awarded appropriate compensation under the head of Pain, shock and suffering and it needs enhancement. Considering the kind of disability, the appellant sustained the tribunal further erred in not awarding compensation for loss of amenities of life. He also prayed for enhancement of compensation for transportation, special diet and attendance charges. He also prayed for enhancement of actual loss of income as the appellant lost his employment. He thus submitted to allow this appeal and enhance the compensation accordingly. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Shashikant Gade for respondent No. 2-Insurance Company of the luxury bus supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is appropriate as the limb of the original claimant was amputated above elbow. In relation to other heads of compensation, he submitted that there being no error in the judgment and award of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 8. Supporting the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Gade, learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for respondent No. 4-Insurance Company of the Truck, submitted that the Tribunal had awarded the compensation on the basis of the disability possessed by the appellant. There being no error in the judgment and award of the Tribunal no interference is called for. In relation to special diet and loss of amenities of life, he submitted that these compensations are to be awarded in certain special circumstances and for which the present appellant is not eligible. He submitted that appeal filed by the appellant-original claimant being merit-less deserves to be dismissed. 9. No other and further submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 10. He submitted that appeal filed by the appellant-original claimant being merit-less deserves to be dismissed. 9. No other and further submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is noticed that the Doctor in his deposition at Exh.50, had stated that the appellant was admitted in the hospital for the surgical treatment and on account of injuries sustained, his right limb was amputated eight inch below shoulder. The appellant had remained as indoor patient for considerable time. The Doctor in his deposition had further stated that on account of amputation of his right limb, he in future would not be in a position to drive any vehicle and he is to work with one hand for rest of his life. Based on the Government Guideline, the doctor had assessed his disability as 80%. In the medical certificate disability has been assessed to the extent of 80%. Considering these two evidences in my opinion, the disability of the appellant is required to be assessed as at 80% instead of 70%. Therefore, the tribunal is in error in assessing the disability of the appellant at 70%. 11. It is not in dispute that the original claimant was of 23 years of age at the time of accident and was employee of the Thakkar Bakery at Surat. He was driving rickshaw and doing work of loading and unloading of goods of the firm and by which he was earning Rs.4750/- per month. In support of his income, the salary certificate was produced at Exh. 48. Further, in support of his salary income, Income Tax Returns filed by the firm were produced and considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, in my opinion, the income of the original claimant assessed by the Tribunal of Rs.4750/- is appropriate. However, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of the Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Nareshkumar, (Supra) Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (Supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Shetty (Supra), the original claimant would be entitled to 40% rise towards future prospective income. As claimant was 23 years of age, the multiplier of 18 would be appropriate. As claimant was 23 years of age, the multiplier of 18 would be appropriate. Therefore, the dependency loss would be as under: “Rs.4750 + 1900 (40% future prospective income) = Rs.6650 x 80% (disability) = Rs.5320 x 12 p.a. = Rs.63,840 x 18 (multiplier) = Rs.11,49,120.” 12. From the record, it is noticed that the appellant shall remained as indoor patient for a period of four months, therefore, Rs.20,000/- considered towards actual loss of income in my opinion is appropriate. Moreover, the claimant at the young age of 23 years lost his one limb for no fault of him. Moreover, on account of his disability, he would not be able to drive and shall have to perform his work with one hand for rest of his life. It cannot be ignored that the at the young age of 23 years, he underwent multiple surgeries including skin grafting and he is expected to compromise at various stages of life. Therefore, in my opinion Rs. 1 lac each would be appropriate towards pain shock and sufferings and loss of amenities of life. Further in my opinion, Rs.50,000/- would be appropriate towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges. Thus, the appellant-original claimant would be entitled to total compensation as under: Future loss of income Rs. 11,49,120/- Actual loss Rs. 20,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 20,000/- Special diet, Transportation and Attendant Rs. 50,000/- Amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 14,39,120/- 13. Therefore, following order is passed: ORDER: (i) Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) Thus, the appellant - claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.14,39,120/-. As the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, respondent Nos. 2 and 4-Insurance companies shall deposit the balance additional amount of compensation of Rs.7,39,120/-, (Rs.14,39,120-Rs.7,00,000) in their respective proportionate liability with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization with the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of the order. (iii) The original claimant is entitled for the compensation and the same shall be disbursed to the original claimant through RTGS, after due verification. (iv) The rest of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal shall remained unaltered. (iii) The original claimant is entitled for the compensation and the same shall be disbursed to the original claimant through RTGS, after due verification. (iv) The rest of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal shall remained unaltered. (v) Deficit Court Fees, if any, is to be paid by the appellant within a period of four weeks, failing which the amount shall be recovered from the amount to be deposited by the Insurance Company. (vi) Registry is directed to transmit back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs.