JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. Though served, no one has appeared for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-original claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (“the Act” for short) being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahal @ Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1524 of 2005 on 29.1.2008. 3. The brief facts of the case that emerge from the record are as under: 3.1 That on 14.5.2005 the claimant and his minor son Shehjad were going as pillion riders on Hero Honda Motor Cycle No. GJ 17 5264 for attending a marriage ceremony at village Godhibda. The motor cycle was being driven by one Faruk Gulam Gatli who was driving the motor cycle on the correct side of the road and when they reached near village Rinchhdi, the opponent No. 1 came driving Truck No. GJ 7 Y 347 in a rash and negligent manner and came on the wrong side of the road and dashed the truck with the motor cycle, as a result of which, both the pillion riders sustained injuries and minor Shehjad succumbed to his injuries. A complaint at I CR No. 59 of 2005 was registered with Santrampur Police Station. The respondent No. 2 is the owner of Truck No. GJ 7 Y 347 and the respondent No. 3 is the insurance company of the truck involved in the accident. 4. The claimant filed the claim petition against the driver, owner and insurance company of the truck but did not join the driver, owner and insurance company of the motor cycle that was involved in the accident and the notices were duly served to all the respondents, but the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have remained absent. The respondent No. 3 insurance company appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed their written statement at Exhs.9 and 11 and have specifically denied all the contents of the claim petition. 5. The respondent No. 3 insurance company appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed their written statement at Exhs.9 and 11 and have specifically denied all the contents of the claim petition. 5. The learned Tribunal, after having considered the evidence on record, held all the opponents including the driver, owner and insurance company of the motor cycle jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation and considered the negligence of the truck driver at 80% and as the driver, owner and insurance company of the motor cycle were not joined as party to the petition, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to only 80% amount of the total compensation from the driver, owner and insurance company of the Truck No. GJ 7 Y 347 and accordingly awarded the amount of Rs.3,28,400/- but deducted 20% and held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,62,720/- under all the available heads with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition till realization. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid award, the appellant-original claimant has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 7. I have heard learned advocate Mr.M.A.Kharadi for the appellant-original claimant and learned advocate for Mr.Palak Thakkar for the respondent No. 3. Though served, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not appeared. 8. It is mainly contended by Mr.M.A.Kharadi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-original claimant that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the amount of negligence of the truck and the driver of the motor cycle was not negligent upto 20% and in fact, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered 100% negligence on the part of the larger vehicle involved in the accident. That the learned Tribunal has also awarded only the amount of Rs.2000/- as transportation charges even though it is on record that the claimant has spent the huge amount on transportation during his treatment. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain, shock and sufferings when in fact, if the medical certificate is considered, the claimant has suffered fracture on his hand and leg and the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5000/- as attendant charges which is a meager amount. Hence, considering the meager amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the amount must be enhanced as per the settled principles of law. 9. Hence, considering the meager amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the amount must be enhanced as per the settled principles of law. 9. On the other-hand, Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3-insurance company has submitted that the award of the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is required and hence, the appeal of the appellant-original claimant must be dismissed with costs. 10. I have gone through the record and proceedings of the present appeal and there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the fact that appellant – original claimant was travelling along with the minor deceased Shehjad as a pillion rider on the Motor Cycle No. GJ 17 5264 which was being driven by one Faruk Gulam. Gatli. That the motor cycle and Truck No. GJ 7 Y 347 had an accident and the driver of Truck No. GJ 7 Y 347 came on the wrong side, driving his truck in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motor cycle and the claimant sustained serious injuries. 11. The learned Tribunal has considered the negligence of the truck driver upto 80% and also considered the negligence of driver of the motor cycle upto 20%. But, it is pertinent to note that even though the claimant was riding as pillion rider and was aware of the details of the driver, owner and the insurance company of the Motor Cycle No. GJ 17 5264 have not joined them as party to the claim petition. That as they have not been joined as party, the learned Tribunal has held that the claimant is not entitled to 20% amount of compensation and has ordered 80% of the awarded amount to be paid by the driver, owner and the insurance company of the Truck No. GJ 7 Y 347. 12. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal has calculated the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2500/- per month and considering the disability of the left lower limb at 21% as per the consent purshis of the parties produced on record at Exh.28, loss of future earning has been calculated at Rs.525/- per month and Rs.6300/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has, as per the judgment of the Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , applied the multiplier of 16 and has granted the amount of Rs.1,00,800/- as compensation for loss of future earning capacity of the claimant which is just, reasonable and proper. Considering the actual income of the claimant at Rs.2500/- per month, the learned Tribunal has held that considering the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would not have worked for a period of six months and actual loss of income of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded. Moreover, as per the medical bills produced by the claimant, the amount of Rs.1,92,600/- has been awarded as medical expenses which is just and proper. As far as the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and sufferings is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, special diet and attendant charges. The claimant has produced his affidavit of the examination-in-chief at Exh.26 and the claimant has stated that due to the accident, he has suffered compound communicated frature Lt.Femur Shaft, Fracture Left Trochanetor, Commi. Frature Scapula Lt.Fracture Rt.Wrist, Fracture Lateral Epicondyle Femur Lt. and he was immediately taken to Santrampur Government Hospital where he was given primary treatment and was thereafter taken to the Government Hospital at Godhra. From there, the claimant was taken to SSG Hospital, Vadodara for further treatment and as the claimant did not recover, he has taken treatment in the hospital of Dr.Rajiv Shah, Orthopedic Hospital at Vadodara. That the claimant was operated upon for his injuries and has thereafter taken further treatment at the hospital of Dr.V.M.Shah, Orthopedic Surgeon at Jamnagar and was also operated upon in Jamnagar. That the claimant has spent huge amount on transportation and considering the injury certificate produced at Exh.20, it appears that the claimant has suffered two fractures on his left leg and has also suffered fracture on the left shoulder. The bills produced at Exh.24 also prove that the claimant has paid room charges, operation charges, theater charges, anesthesia charges and was operated upon at Dr.V.M.Shah’s Orthopedic Hospital, Jamnagar, Baroda Hospital of Dr.Rajiv Shah and considering huge amount of medical bills of Rs.1,92,600/-, it appears that the amount awarded towards pain, shock and suffering and transportation, special diet and attendant charges is erroneous and much on the lower side. Accordingly, if the claimant is granted the amount of Rs.35,000/- towards pain, shock and sufferings and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, special diet and attendant charges instead of the amount of Rs.10,000/- each, it would be just and proper. The learned Tribunal has rightly deducted negligence of 20% of the motor cycle from the awarded amount as the claimant had not joined the driver, owner and insurance company of the motor cycle as party to the petition. In these circumstances, it is held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.35,000/- as pain, shock and sufferings, out of which the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain, shock and sufferings. As far as the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards transportation, special diet and attendant charges is concerned, out of which, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, special diet and attendant charges. In all, the amount of Rs.35,000/- minus 20% negligence of the motor cycle involved in the accident, i.e. the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.28,000/-. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, First Appeal No. 463 of 2013 filed by the appellant-original claimant is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahal @ Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1524 of 2005 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.28,000/- before the learned Tribunal within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order with interest at the rate of 6%. As the original matter is of 2005 and the First Appeal is of the year 2013, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the said enhanced amount to the claimant after due verification through RTGS or NEFT. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.