JUDGMENT : 1. The present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act is filed against the judgment and award dated 21.06.2008 passed by M.A.C.T. (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No.2, District : Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 203 of 1994 insofar as it relates to present appellant - original claimant. 2. The brief background of the fact which has given rise to present appeal is that on 14.09.1993, the injured and his friend were standing near Kunj Plaza Apartment on Rajmahel road and at that time, the original opponent No.1 driver of the S. T. Bus No. GJ-1-Z-1688 came from the S. T. Depot side in rash and negligent manner and dashed with Manojkumar and injured applicant. The S. T. Bus was going Vadodara to Surat. On account of the said accident for a primary medical treatment both the injured were taken to S. S. G. Hospital and during hospitalization, one of the injured Manojbhai was died whereas the appellant - original claimant sustained serious injury on head. On account of this head injury as well as eye injury, the appellant could not see, also could not hear anything nor in a position to speak and there was a severe pain on the chest, neck, both the hands were also not working and femur bone fracture on the left leg as well as both legs were injured and on several parts of the body, there are serious injuries and the appellant had to remain as indoor patient and he was taking treatment and had to remain in hospital for a period of 50 days in Mayo Hospital. 2.1 Since the appellant was at a relevant point of time aged about 25 years and was serving as an Accountant in M. S. University of Vadodara, drawing salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. Hence, had to file claim petition for seeking a compensation to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-. Simultaneously, a complaint was also filed pursuant to such accident in Raopura Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R. No.232 of 1993. 2.2 The said petition was registered as M.A.C.P. No.203 of 1994, which came up for consideration and after adjudication, the learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 21.06.2008 was pleased to allow the claim petition in part. The operative part of the said judgment reads as under:- "The claim petition is partly allowed. 2.2 The said petition was registered as M.A.C.P. No.203 of 1994, which came up for consideration and after adjudication, the learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 21.06.2008 was pleased to allow the claim petition in part. The operative part of the said judgment reads as under:- "The claim petition is partly allowed. The applicant is entitled to get Rs.3,98,210/- with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till final disbursement. So, the applicant is entitled to get amount of the claim from Opponent Nos.1 and 2 - Driver and Owner of the S T Bus No: GJ-1-Z-1688. The applicant No.1 is entitled to get 30% amount of compensation in cash and 70% amount of compensation be deposited in the name of the applicant in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years. Applicant is entitled to get interest quarterly. Applicant is not entitled to get any loan or advance without prior permission of this Tribunal. The opponents Nos.1 and 2 are also directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation with interest in this Tribunal within a period of two months. On depositing the amount of compensation, court fee be deducted if any. Amount of interim compensation under section 140, if any paid to the applicant; said amount shall be adjusted against the amount of final award. Opponent has to pay the cost to applicant. Award be drawn accordingly." 2.3 It is this judgment and award since found to be in adequate, the present appellant has brought present First Appeal before this Court for seeking higher compensation by raising multiple contentions. The appeal after having been admitted on 17.04.2009 has come up for consideration finally, in which, Mr. M. T. M. Hakim, learned advocate has represented the appellant - original claimant whereas Mr. Hardik C. Rawal, learned advocate has represented original opponent No.2 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. 3. Mr. M. T. M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant on account of such accident has sustained serious injuries and had to remain in hospital for a pretty long period as indicated and as such as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- a very meager amount is awarded by the learned Tribunal without appreciating the material in its proper prospective. It has been contended that for a period of 29 days, the appellant had to remain in ICU in the hospital whereas overall hospitalization was around 62 days and as such on the basis of just compensation, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded higher amount after considering the disability which has occurred to a substantial extent. 3.1 Mr. Hakim, learned advocate has also submitted that disability as assessed by the competent Doctor, who examined the appellant and the said medical papers at Exhs. 24, 31 and 34 revealed that disability was to the extent of 80% and as such Mr. Hakim, learned advocate has requested that the amount which has been awarded is to meager amount as compared to the amount which has been claimed. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate has submitted that prospective rise has not been considered as well as disability aspect has also not been considered in the right spirit. Looking to the age of appellant, even the multiplier 18 ought to have been applied and by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 a request is made to enhance the compensation which has been awarded at a lower side. 3.2 Mr. Hakim, learned advocate has further submitted that loss of amenity, pain, shock and suffering and special diet compensation ought to have been awarded in view of the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Syed Sadiq etc. versus Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735 and by referring to the said decisions, Mr. Hakim, learned advocate has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has then submitted that special diet ought to have been considered to the extent of Rs.10,000/-, the pain, shock and suffering ought to have been allowed to the extent of Rs.50,000/- in view of the decision delivered in case of Syed Sadiq (supra) and the loss of amenity also deserves to be allowed to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and instead of considering disability to the extent of 50% in view of the certificates which are refereed 80% disability ought to have been assessed. Hence, learned advocate has submitted that the amount awarded is not in consonance with the principles enunciated by the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, as said earlier the appropriate amount of compensation ought to have been awarded keeping in view the settled proposition of law. 4. As against this, Mr. Hardik C. Rawal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting opponent No.2 has submitted that the judgment delivered by the Tribunal is in consonance with the material produced on record and the contention raised are not just and proper in view of the peculiar background of fact. It has been submitted that the certificates which are tried to be relied upon are relating to examination which took place in the year, 2007 and there was not a single certificate of Mayo Hospital of 1993 around when the appellant took treatment. It is a peculiar fact that no documents about treatment of anything like that has been produced for the year 1995 to 2004 and as such in the absence of any material, no claim deserves to be considered for enhancement. 4.1 It has further been contended that there is no evidence produced worth the name about the suffering from all these years continuously and as such on the basis of material which has been produced the assessment has been made and the order came to be passed. Further, the concerned Doctor has also asserted in his testimony that he was not given the treatment in the year 2005 and the certificate appears to have been given after almost a period of 12 years with respect to that disability. On the contrary, according to Mr. Rawal, learned advocate, the disability which has been assessed of 50% is also very doubtful but since a corporation has not challenged the decision Mr. Rawal, learned advocate has submitted that whatever disability is assessed is just and proper. Further it has been contended that Dr. Tushar Mankad, who was the only Doctor, who has been examined at Exh.24 and this is the classic case where the opinion was expressed on the basis of no concrete papers or the material and the relevant Doctor has not been examined. By referring to the evidence of appellant at Exh.38 no doubt the age is not in dispute but the appellant appears to have not been working as the Accountant as indicated. By referring to the evidence of appellant at Exh.38 no doubt the age is not in dispute but the appellant appears to have not been working as the Accountant as indicated. In fact the cross-examination at page 85 of the compilation is a self explanatory which would reveal that right from 1993 to 2005 no treatment appears to have obtained of any Doctor and as such in the absence of any evidence to that effect no enhancement may be made as the stand of the appellant is self contradictory. 4.2 Mr. Rawal, learned advocate has reiterated that all the certificates which are tried to be pressed into service are almost after 10 years and the testimony of the Dr. Tushar Mankad is also not supporting the stand of the appellant. In fact the Doctor himself who initially opined the disability to the extent of 90% whereas in his evidence and later part of testimony indicated something else and as such 50% disability which has been ascertained by the Tribunal appears to be justified and beyond that it is absolutely not possible. With respect to other heads, learned advocate has submitted that the amount which has been awarded is on the basis of material on record and upon critical analysis and as such has submitted that in the absence of any distinguishable material, a possible view which has been taken by learned Tribunal may not be substituted looking to the scope of appellate jurisdiction. Hence, by referring to the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal, Mr. Rawal, learned advocate has submitted that the appeal lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. In counter to this, at this stage, Mr. M. T. M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has reiterated his submissions by referring to the decisions which have been relied upon and has requested to allow the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, few circumstances prevailing on record deserves consideration before coming to an ultimate conclusion in the present proceedings. 7. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, few circumstances prevailing on record deserves consideration before coming to an ultimate conclusion in the present proceedings. 7. From the judgment which has been passed by the learned Tribunal for sustaining the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- a narration is made in the claim petition that there was earning of Rs.3,500/- per month at the time of accident and the original claimant was engaged in M. S. University in writing of account books and was drawing Rs.2,000/- per month and from tailoring work was also earning. Hence, total income stated to have been of Rs.3,500/- per month. In addition to it, has stated that in festive season like Diwali, Navratri and Ganesh Mahotsav from tailoring work he was getting substantial amount which may go up Rs.10,000/- per month also. The appellant admitted in his oral testimony at Exh.38 that the tailoring work was being done in the name of Arun Tailors at his house but have not obtained registration certificate under the Shop and Establishment Act nor maintaining the accounts books nor produced during the course of adjudication. 8. With regard to the injuries which have caused on various parts of the body and on account of fracture injury on his left leg of femur bone, both the legs were stiffed and lose the sensation and the appellant could not come out from the pain for a period of around five months. The appellant was in the Mayo Hospital for a pretty long period of approximately 50 days in ICU and thereafter was shifted in the other ward. Insofar as primary treatment which has been mated out to appellant in S. S. G. Hospital and he was in faint condition the appellant was not been able to recognized how many Doctors treated him and the relevant medical papers of S. S. G. Hospital have not been able to be produced. After getting paper from Mayo Hospital, the appellant was discharged on 01.12.1993 but regarding the treatment after 01.12.1993, there is no material available with the appellant. During the course of examination, it is revealed that no treatment was taken from Dr. Khyati Mankad, Dr. Rajesh M. Rane and Dr. Tushar Mankad, who are Ophthalmologist and ENT Surgeon who did not give the treatment. During the course of examination, it is revealed that no treatment was taken from Dr. Khyati Mankad, Dr. Rajesh M. Rane and Dr. Tushar Mankad, who are Ophthalmologist and ENT Surgeon who did not give the treatment. The injuries certificate of S. S. G. Hospital was produced at Exh.37. The medical papers which have produced of Mayo Hospital vide Exhs. 27 and 22 both bills indicated that the appellant remained as indoor patient from 15.09.1993 to 13.10.1993 i.e. a period of 29 days only and later on was shifted to a special room where he remained for 18 days and 15 days respectively, but he was discharged from the hospital on 01.12.1993. Regarding this period of hospitalization, no medical papers about treatment were made available and one of the witness has admitted that they have not examined the appellant after 1995 to 2004 and are not aware about the fact of which treatment the appellant has taken. It is also revealed from the certificate that which type of test was undertaken was also not forthcoming, even disability certificate which has been issued at Exh.24 in chief examination Doctor has opined that there is permanent disability around 75% to 80% as a whole body and then the disability certificate which has been produced by the appellant of Dr. Rajesh M. Rane who is an ENT Surgeon indicates that there is partial hearing disability to the extent of 49.5% and as such it appears that there is a discrepancy about the percentage of permanent disability of the appellant and the exact particulars was not forthcoming about the medical treatment which have been given to the appellant and as such on the basis of inadequate particulars and the particulars which are contradictory, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion to arrive at an approximate disability to the extent of 50% and then by applying the calculation method has determined the amount payable to the appellant. 9. The amount which has already been awarded is reflecting in a tabular form while answering Issue No.2 in affirmative. Hence, the Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder:- Towards actual loss of income. Rs. 0,08,000/- Towards future loss of income. Rs. 1,80,000/- Towards pain, shock and suffering. Rs. 0,25,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 1,64,310/- Towards attendant charges. Rs. 0,06,200/- Towards pain, shock and suffering. Rs.0,10,000/- Towards transportation expenses. Rs.0,05,000/- Total Compensation. Rs.3,98,210/- 10. Hence, the Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder:- Towards actual loss of income. Rs. 0,08,000/- Towards future loss of income. Rs. 1,80,000/- Towards pain, shock and suffering. Rs. 0,25,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 1,64,310/- Towards attendant charges. Rs. 0,06,200/- Towards pain, shock and suffering. Rs.0,10,000/- Towards transportation expenses. Rs.0,05,000/- Total Compensation. Rs.3,98,210/- 10. In the aforesaid details which are provided and reflecting on record, the Court has also perused the oral evidence of Dr. Tushar Mankad as well his cross-examination at length which has been taken and it appears that the learned Tribunal while arriving at a disability percentage has not committed any error more particularly when the cross-examination of Arun Haribhai Padas Gavkar. Hence, the Court is not inclined to disturb the order passed by the learned Tribunal in a substantial form. However, the amount which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal is appearing slightly on the lower side and as such keeping in view the principles of just compensation, the Court is inclined to consider the case of appellant to some extent. In view of the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Syed Sadiq (supra) in respect of pain, shock and suffering the amount which has awarded of Rs.25,000/- is required to be increased and as such the Court deems it proper to fix the same at Rs.50,000/- under the said head. In respect of attendant charges, the amount which has been awarded of Rs.6,200/- deserves to be considered in view of the fact that for a substantial period the appellant has to suffer and could not carry out his usual activity without any further support and as such Court deems it proper to increase the same to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. In respect of special diet, the amount has not been considered along with the attendant charges but the Court deems it proper to the award the same to the extent of Rs.10,000/- looking to the injury and the suffering by the appellant for a pretty long period. Further, the learned Tribunal has not considered at all the loss of amenity which the appellant was deprived on account of such kind of serious injuries. Further, the learned Tribunal has not considered at all the loss of amenity which the appellant was deprived on account of such kind of serious injuries. Hence, the Court deems it proper to consider the same in the light of decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Syed Sadiq (supra) and an amount of Rs.50,000/- deserves to be awarded for loss of amenity. 11. Looking to the principles of just compensation as propounded in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra) and considering the age of the appellant, multiplier of 18 deserves to be applied and on that basis, looking to 50% disability having been suffered, the amount deserves to be considered and accordingly, the figure of actual loos of income as well as future loss of income would have to be altered or modified. Thus, the appellant is entitled to following amount under different heads:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) towards actual loss of income Rs. 24,000/- towards future loss of income Rs. 3,02,400/- towards pain, shock and suffering Rs. 60,000/- towards medical expenses Rs. 2,87,023/- towards attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and transportation expenses Rs.15,000/- towards amenities of life Rs.50,000/- Total Compensation Rs.7,48,423/- 12. As the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,98,210/-, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of compensation of Rs.3,50,213/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till its realization. 13. Considering the aforesaid situation and looking to the analysis of material on record, it appears that the amount which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced to the aforesaid extent only and to that effect the First Appeal deserves to be allowed in part by modifying the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 21.06.2008. Hence, accepting the appeal to the aforesaid extent, following order would meet the ends of justice:- (i) First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 21.06.2008 passed by M.A.C.T. (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No.2, District : Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 203 of 1994 is hereby modified by determining additional amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.3,50,213/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till its realization and appellant is entitled to receive the same from the opponents. (iii) Rest of the order of the learned Tribunal is unaltered and accordingly, the same is modified while allowing First Appeal in part.