JUDGMENT : 1. Draft amendment is granted. To be carried out forthwith. 2. The injured claimant is challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 11.4.2022 passed in MACP no.679/11 by the MACT (Main), Mehsana. With the consent of both the advocates on record, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. Mr. Jay Shah along with Mr. Ankit Shah submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the aspect of prospective rise in income, which has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Referring to the decision in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors, AIR 2020 SC 4424 , it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the addition to the rise in prospective income. It is stated that though 17% disability has been assessed, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that over and above the physical disability, the claimant had suffered neurological permanent disability of 12% and because of that, he is suffering from memory loss and also has speech impediment and thus, stated that amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering has not been appropriately granted. It is further stated that the medical condition of the claimant would require an attendant and the learned Tribunal could have also granted amount under the head of loss of amenities. 4. While Mr. Palak Thakkar stated that the learned Tribunal has granted reasonable and just amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering. Taking into consideration the mental and physical disability of the claimant, total medical charges of Rs.2,70,000/- has been granted and under the head of special diet, attendance charges and transportation charges, reasonable amount has been awarded by the Tribunal and has also stated that the income per month is assessed as per the evidence and thus, submitted that interference of this Court is not warranted at this stage. 5. On the facts of the case as can be succinctly noted that on 13.2.2011, the claimant who was a paid driver of jeep no. GJ-02 AP-9028 along with other persons was heading towards Varana Village and while returning back home at about 1:30 p.m. near Sarval Village, suddenly one Nilgay (bluebuck) came in the way and the claimant who was driving the vehicle lost control over the jeep and the jeep turned turtle. GJ-02 AP-9028 along with other persons was heading towards Varana Village and while returning back home at about 1:30 p.m. near Sarval Village, suddenly one Nilgay (bluebuck) came in the way and the claimant who was driving the vehicle lost control over the jeep and the jeep turned turtle. The claimant as well as other occupants received bodily injuries. The claimant was taken to Sai Krishna Hospital, Mehsana and he sustained mental and physical injury. The age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 47 years. The learned Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.4,500/- per month while considering income from agricultural work and driving work. This Court finds that the said monthly income so assessed is in accordance to the evidence produced on record. However, no assessment has been made regarding the prospective rise in income. 6. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), it has been held as under:- 17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638], this Court held as follows : (SCC p. 276, para 2) “2. …There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.” ******* ******** ********* Loss of earnings 20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs 14,66,000.” 12. In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi principle).” 7. Thus, keeping in view the proposition as laid down in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), considering the age and that he was a self-employed person, 25% addition is to be made towards future prospective rise in income. Thus, considering the salary of Rs.4,500/- adding 25% prospective rise, the monthly income could be assessed is Rs.5,625/-. 8. Hence, applying 17% disability with multiplier of 13 to the income of Rs.5,625/- annually, the claimant would be entitled for an amount of Rs.1,49,175/- (Rs.67,500/- X 17% X 13) towards future loss of income. 9. The Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. The evidence on record suggests that Neuro Surgeon Dr. Mahesh Trivedi, Champa Hospital, Mehseana has issued the disability certificate and under the consent of both the parties for considering neurological disability for the body as a whole, 12% has been considered and another disability certificate issued by Dr. Mahesh Khandelwal, M.S. Ortho, Mehsana, 5% disability has been considered. So in total, the learned Tribunal has assessed 17% functional disability, but the claimant has suffered neurological injury and is suffering from memory loss and also facing difficulty in his speech. Mahesh Khandelwal, M.S. Ortho, Mehsana, 5% disability has been considered. So in total, the learned Tribunal has assessed 17% functional disability, but the claimant has suffered neurological injury and is suffering from memory loss and also facing difficulty in his speech. Because of this injury, he would have suffered pain, shock and suffering more than any person who had only physical disability. Thus, under the head of pain, shock and suffering, the amount is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. 10. Considering the physical situation of the claimant, he would be in need of an attendant as he would not be in a position to continue with his activity as would have been carried as usual earlier prior to the accident. The mental condition and the difficulty in his speech along with physical disability, he must have spent for the attendant. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/- under the head of attendant charges, special diet and transportation. Hence, under the said head, the amount of Rs.30,000/- is granted. 11. Considering the neurological defect and the effect on the speech and the loss in the memory, appropriate amount is required to be granted under the head of loss of amenities and thus, an amount of Rs.30,000/- would be appropriate under the said head. Actual loss of income has been assessed by the Tribunal and medical bills have been granted by the learned Trial Court. 12. Thus, in view of the above, the compensation can be computed as under:- Future loss of income Rs.1,49,175/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs.75,000/- Actual loss of income Rs.27,000/- Medical bills Rs.2,70,000/- Special diet, attendant and transportation Rs.30,000/- Loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000/- Total compensation Rs.5,81,175/- 13. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.4,86,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, the appellant would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,775/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 14. The impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal, if received.