JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. Though served, no one has appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 1. This appeals have been preferred by the appellants-original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in M.A.C.P.No. 795 of 2003, M.A.C.P.No. 796 of 2003 and MACP No. 797 of 2003 dated 29.11.2011. All the claim petitions have arisen out of the same accident and the learned Tribunal has disposed the claim petitions by a common judgment dated 29.11.2011. First Appeal No. 355 of 2013 and First Appeal No. 356 of 2013 have arisen out of the same common judgment hence, both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case that emerge from the record are as under: 2.1 That on 27.3.2003, the applicant of MACP No. 797 of 2003 was driving Hero Honda Motorcycle No. GJ 17 K 6081 and Hiralben Balwansinh Solanki, his daughter, the applicant of MACP No. 796 of 2003 and his wife Niruben Balwantsinh Solanki were traveling as pillion riders on the motorcycle and at around 12.30 pm when they reached near Bhuval stand towards Bariya on the Bariya - Godhra Road the opponent No. 1 came driving Ambasador Car No. GJ 16 U 2759, in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which all the persons on the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries. That the injuries sustained by Niruben Balwantsinh Solanki were very serious and she succumbed to her injuries and her legal heirs filed MACP No. 795 of 2003 for compensation. 3. Notices were duly served to all the opponents in the claim petitions and the opponent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear whereas, the opponent No. 3 -Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statements at Exhibits 13, 14 and 15 respectively in all the claim petitions mainly denying all the averments and allegations made in the claim petitions. 3. Notices were duly served to all the opponents in the claim petitions and the opponent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear whereas, the opponent No. 3 -Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statements at Exhibits 13, 14 and 15 respectively in all the claim petitions mainly denying all the averments and allegations made in the claim petitions. The Insurance Company has inter alia contended that the applicant of MACP No. 796 of 2003 was solely responsible for causing the accident as he was driving the motorcycle with two pillion riders and while trying to overtake one luxury bus lost control over the motorcyle and dashed it with the vehicle of opponent No. 1 and the opponents are not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants. 4. The learned Tribunal after having considered the evidence on record held the opponent No. 1- driver of Ambasador Car No. GJ 16 U 2759 solely responsible and accepted the evidence of the claimant in the context of the circumstances of the case and held that the applicant of M.A.C.P No. 796 of 2003, the driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle No. GJ 17 K 6081 was not rash and negligent at the time of the accident. 5. The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the applicant of M.A.C.P No. 796 of 2003 and awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental pain, shock and sufering, Rs.17492/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.5,000/- towards the attendant charges and Rs. 57,924/- as actual loss of income and awarded the total amount of Rs.1,40,416/- as compensation to the claimant. That the learned Tribunal did not award any amount as loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability as while recording the evidence the claimant had categorically stated that he was earning a salary of Rs.4800/- per month and on the date of recording the evidence, he was getting salary of Rs. 11,000/- per month and as his income had not degraded because of the accidental injuries no compensation was awarded under the head loss of future earning. 5.1 The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petiton of the applicant of M.A.C.P No. 797 of 2003 and awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental pain, shock and sufering, Rs. 1700/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5.1 The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petiton of the applicant of M.A.C.P No. 797 of 2003 and awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental pain, shock and sufering, Rs. 1700/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.5,000/- towards the attendant charges and Rs. 54,000/- as future loss of income and awarded the total amount of Rs.1,20,700/- as compensation to the claimant. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P No. 797 of 2003 and M.A.C.P. No. 796 of 2003, the appellants -original claimants have approached this Court by way of these appeals. 7. I have heard learned advocate Mr.M.T.M.Hakim for the appellants-original claimants and learned advocate Mr.Palak H.Thakkar for the respondent No. 3. 8. As far as the contents of M.A.C.P.No. 796 of 2003 are concerned, it is mainly contended by Mr.M.T.M.Hakim, learned advocate for the appellant -original claimant that the learned Tribunal has not granted future loss of income when infact the claimant is entitled to the future loss of earning in view of the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 2031 of 2008 with First Appeal No. 2490 of 2008 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation through Divisional Controller vs. Maheshbhai Bhagvatlal Joshi wherein, this Hon’ble Court has considered the fact that even though the claimant did not suffer any loss of income, in view of the disability suffered by him, he would not be able to earn as much as he would otherwise have earned as he had not suffered from such disability and by adopting the multiplier of 5 and considering the disability sustained by the claimant, awarded loss of future income. The learned advocate for the appellant has urged this Court to enhance the amount of compensation as the award of the learned Tribunal is illegal, unjust, improper, erroneous and bad in law. 8.1 As far as the contents of M.A.C.P.No. 797 of 2003 are concerned, it is mainly contended by Mr.M.T.M.Hakim, learned advocate for the appellant original claimant that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the income of the minor as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Managar, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2014) 14 SCC 396 . That the minor ought to have been granted an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs as pain, shock and suffering, hardship, inconvenience, loss of amenities of life and the learned Tribunal has only granted a meager amount of Rs.54,000/-. That the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced upto that extent. The learned advocate has not challenged the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal as medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges and transportation. The learned advocate for the appellant has urged this Court to enhance the amount of compensation as the award of the learned Tribunal is illegal, unjust, improper, erroneous and bad in law. 9. Mr.Palak Thakker, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company has submitted that the award of the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P No. 796 of 2003 and M.A.C.P. No. 797 of 2003 is just and proper and no interference is required and hence, the appeals of the appellants -original claimants must be rejected with cost. 10. I have gone through the record and proceedings of M.A.C.P.No. 796 of 2003 and M.A.C.P.No. 797 of 2003 and there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the fact that the claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 796 of 2003 was driving Hero Honda Motorcycle No. GJ 17 K 6081 and the claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 797 of 2003 was the pillion rider on the motorcycle along with her mother Niruben Balwantsingh Solanki who died in the accident. That the motorcycle dashed with Ambassador car No. GJ 16 U 2759 and there is also no dispute with regard to the learned Tribunal holding the driver of Ambassador car No. GJ 16 U 2759 solely responsible for the occurence of the accident and the same has not been challenged before this Court. It is pertinent to note that the Opponent No. 1 driver of the Ambassador car involved in the accident was the best eye witness to depose about how the accident has occurred but the opponent No. 1, driver has not stepped into the witness box to rebut the evidence of the applicant and the learned Tribunal has believed the version of the claimant and held the driver of the ambassador car solely negligent for the occurence of the accident. 10.1 As regards the challenge to M.A.C.P. No. 796 of 2003, the only dispute is with regard to the non granting of future loss of income by the learned Tribunal and I have gone through the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 2031 of 2008 with First Appeal No. 2490 of 2008 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation through Divisional Controller vs. Maheshbhai Bhagvatlal Joshi relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant. As per the judgment the income of the claimant had increased and considering the disability at 35% by adopting multiplier of 5, the future loss of income was worked out and the claimant was awarded compensation accordingly. In M.A.C.P. No. 796 of 2003 the learned Tribunal has not granted any amount as future loss of income to the claimant which is erroneous and same is required to be computed and granted to the claimant. As far as the other heads are concerned the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.57,924/- as actual loss of income, Rs.5,000/- each towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges (in all Rs.15,000/-) Rs.17,492/- as medical expenses for the bills produced by the original claimant and Rs.50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and all these amounts are just, proper and reasonable and only the amount of future loss of income is required to be added. 10.2. In light of the above discussion, considering the income of the original claimant at Rs.4,800/- per month as held by the learned Tribunal and the disability of 26% the future loss of income would work out to be Rs.1248/- per month and Rs.14,976/- per year and applying the multiplier of 5, the amount of future loss of income is Rs.74,880/- to which the claimant is entitled. 10.3. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 355 of 2013 is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.74,880/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 11. 10.3. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 355 of 2013 is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.74,880/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 11. As regards the challenge to M.A.C.P. No. 797 of 2003, the only dispute is with regard to the calculation of just and fair compensation to the minor suffering from permanent disability as a child can not be equated to a non working person and compensation is to be worked out under non pecuniary heads in addition to actual amounts incurred for treatment done, transportation, assistance of attendant etc. I have gone through decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2014) 14 SCC 396 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs as compensation to a minor child of the age of 12 years for pain, shock and suffering, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability. In M.A.C.P. No. 797 of 2003 the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the minor at Rs.15,000/- and taken the multiplier of 15 as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and on the basis of 24% permanent disability the annual future loss of income is calculated at Rs.3,600/- and an amount of Rs.54,000/- is awarded by way of loss to future income. This amount is erroneously calculated and the claimant is required to be granted compensation in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Managar, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2014) 14 SCC 396 . As far as the other heads are concerned the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.5,000/- each towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges (in all Rs.15,000/-) Rs.1700/- as medical expenses for the bills produced by the original claimant and all these amounts are just, proper and reasonable and only the amount under non pecuniary heads of the minor is required to be added. 11.1. 11.1. In light of the above discussion, the original claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 797 of 2003 is entitled to Rs.3.00 lakhs under non pecuniary heads, Rs.1700/- towards the medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- each towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges (in all Rs.15,000/-) and is entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,16,700/- as compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,20,700/- which is required to be deducted and the claimant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.1,96,000/- as enhanced compensation. 12. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 355 of 2013 is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.74,880/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 13. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 356 of 2013 is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 14. The impugned judgment and award of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in M.A.C.P.No. 796 of 2003 stands modified accordingly. The respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Company Limited is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.74,880/- before the learned Tribunal within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order with interest at the rate of 6% till realization. As the original matter is of the year 2003 and the First Appeal is of the year 2013, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire amount to the original claimant after due verification through RTGS or NEFT. 15. The impugned judgment and award of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in M.A.C.P.No. 797 of 2003 stands modified accordingly. The respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Company Limited is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,96,000/- before the learned Tribunal within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order with interest at the rate of 6% till realization. As the original matter is of the year 2003 and the First Appeal is of the year 2013, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire amount to the original claimant after due verification through RTGS or NEFT. 16. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs. As the original matter is of the year 2003 and the First Appeal is of the year 2013, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire amount to the original claimant after due verification through RTGS or NEFT. 16. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.