JUDGMENT : This appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “Act”) challenging the award dated 17.12.2021 delivered by the Member 5th Additional Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandla in MACC No.81/2021 granting an amount Rs.1,86,351/- along with @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of application till the payment to the appellant/claimant on account of injury sustained by him in road traffic accident against the respondents jointly and severally. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short “MACT”). 3. The two claim petitions nos.MACC 61/2021 and 81/2021 were tried jointly and the claims preferred were allowed. In this appeal is concerned with the claim petition preferred by the appellant/claimant against the award passed in MACC No.81/2021 dated 17.12.2021 4. The brief facts, necessary for adjudication of this case are that 35 years old Ramesh Sahu, the appellant herein was running an auto and also doing agriculture work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of the accident. On 14.12.2020, the appellant/claimant along with Khemchand standing near courtyard of Therendra in village Beeja at about 10:30 a.m. The driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.CG-04-HB 7133 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the appellant and Khemchand Sahu, due to which, both of them got serious injuries and the appellant herein got fractured on right pubic with left Tibia restricted movement. He was given first aid at Primary Health Centre, Bichhiya thereafter he was shifted to Centre Point Hospital, Nagpur and admitted on 16.12.2020 for treatment and was discharged on 19.12.2020 against medical advised as stated in discharge summary dated 19.12.2020. The matter was reported to the police by appellant -Ramesh Sahu alleging that the alleged accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the said Car by its driver. Basing on the said report, Bichhiya Police registered a case in Crime No.333/2020 for offence under sections 279 and 337 of IPC. After investigation of this case, charge-sheet was submitted against accused/driver (Deepak Kumar Sahu) for having committed the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 5. The appellant/injured filed an application claiming compensation a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- before the Claims Tribunal on account of injury sustained by him in the said accident. 6. After investigation of this case, charge-sheet was submitted against accused/driver (Deepak Kumar Sahu) for having committed the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 5. The appellant/injured filed an application claiming compensation a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- before the Claims Tribunal on account of injury sustained by him in the said accident. 6. The first and second respondents have not contested the matter. 7. The third respondent/insurance company filed a written statement contending inter-alia that the averments in the petition are false. It is further averred that the claim made by the appellant is imaginary and for wrongful gain. Further contended that on perusal of first information report dated 14.12.2020, it is clear that the vehicle in question was sold by the second respondent to the first respondent (Deepak Kumar Sahu) but the said vehicle was not registered in his name. The insurance being in the name of the owner Jitendra Sharanagat, therefore, the insurance company is not responsible to pay compensation, the owner of the vehicle has not given any information about the accident and not submitted any documents relating to the treatment. Further averred that the claimant/appellant has not submitted the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. The appellant/claimant suffered injuries all general in nature. Further averred that the appellant/injured having exaggerated the facts and filed the appeal without producing the bills to get compensation and, therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation and it is further averred that the compensation claimed by the appellant is excessive and pray to dismiss the appeal. 8. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues dated 02.08.2021 :- (i). Whether the accident happened on 14.12.2020 at around 10:30 under the village Beeja, Tehsil- Bichhiya, District-Mandla by the driver (non-applicant no.1) of the vehicle no.CG-04-BH-7133, ownership of non-applicant no.2 and insured with non-applicant no.3 caused an accident by hitting the applicant while driving the insured vehicle in a rash and negligent manner ? (ii). Whether the said accident has resulted in a serious injuries to the applicant resulting in permanent disabilit ? (iii). Whether the vehicle is question was driven in violation of terms of insurance policy ? If yes, Effects. (iv). Whether the applicant is entitled to receive compensation from the non-applicants ? If yes, then from whom and how much. (v). Aid and litigation expenditure. 9. (iii). Whether the vehicle is question was driven in violation of terms of insurance policy ? If yes, Effects. (iv). Whether the applicant is entitled to receive compensation from the non-applicants ? If yes, then from whom and how much. (v). Aid and litigation expenditure. 9. In order to establish his claim at the time of inquiry PW-1 to PW-4 were examined, Exhibits-P/1 to P/58(c) got marked on behalf of appellant/claimant. No oral evidence was adduced and no documents were marked on behalf of the third respondent/insurance company. 10. On appreciation of evidence of PW-1 (Ramesh Sahu/injured), PW-3 (Doctor) and Ex.P-1 to P-58(c), the learned Tribunal was of the view of that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver and caused the accident and filed criminal case against the driver (the offending vehicle). He was responsible for causing the accident (as stated in para-18 of the judgment) and passed an award of an amount of Rs. 1,86,351/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum and cost of Rs.500/- against the respondents jointly and severally from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment. 11. The break up details of compensation awarding by the learned Tribunal are tabulations under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Amount of compensation awarded in Rupees 1. Pain and suffering Rs.7,000/- 2. Attendant charges Rs.7,000/- 3. For nutrition Rs.10000/- 4. Medical Expenses Rs.1,14,351/- 5. Loss of future earnings Rs.48,000/- Total Rs.1,86,351/- 12. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation. Further he would submit that the claimant has preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal are not sustainable in the eye of law and the same suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and further submit that the findings of the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law and contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court. Further submit that the appellant would have got more compensation than the awarded amount, further submit though the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the appellant @ Rs.15,000/- per month. Further submit that the appellant would have got more compensation than the awarded amount, further submit though the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the appellant @ Rs.15,000/- per month. However, at the same time the learned Tribunal has committed an error while not awarding the compensation under the head of future loss of earnings in terms of the Apex Court judgment. It is also submitted that under the head of pain and suffering, as well as under the head of special diet, attendant charges, the learned Tribunal has awarded very meager amount, therefore, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified by enhancing the amount of compensation. 14. The learned standing counsel for the third respondent/National Insurance Company Ltd. has opposed this appeal and contended that no evidence was adduced as per the income is concerned and the learned Tribunal has left with no alternative but to determine the income as per the guess work, further would submit that the Tribunal has rightly assumed the income of the injured and calculated the compensation amount, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity and needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, this appeal lack of merits and prays to dismiss the same. 15. In view of the above rival arguments, the points for determination in this appeal are as under:- (i). Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for ? and ; (ii). Whether the awarded passed by the learned Tribunal needs any interference ? 16. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels, perused and assessed the entire evidence on record including the exhibited documents. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Tribunal has framed issue no.1, as to whether, the accident in question occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Registration No.CG-04-HB-7133, by its driver, to which, the learned Tribunal after considering the oral evidence coupled with the documents, gave a finding on issue no.1 and mentioned in para-18 of the judgment that as it was a clear evidence, prima-facie proved only by initiation of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle, who was responsible to cause accident. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.CG-04-HB-7133, it is further observed that the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy by the date of accident and the first respondent driver possessing valid driving license, which is not in dispute in either side. That apart, it is settled principles of law that the strict rule of evidence is not applicable under the Act of 1988. In view thereof, the vehicle in question was found to be involved in connection with the alleged accident occurred on 14.12.2020 and the learned Tribunal has, therefore, rightly arrived that the driver of the offending vehicle is responsible to cause the accident. The finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby upheld. 17. On perusal of the judgment, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal committed an error in awarding amount of conventional heads i.e. transportation and amenities and past earnings, further the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the injured was earning monthly income @ Rs.15,000/- per month. He was running an auto for his livelihood. Further the learned Tribunal found that the appellant/injured earning monthly income of Rs.5,000/- by running an auto, further observed that it is not unusual for the appellant to get hypothetical monthly Rs.5000/- per month, therefore, income of the appellant is considered to be Rs.5000/- per month. 18. A decision reported in Susy Vs. Suma Lalu Pareparambil House and Others, 2021 SCC Online Ker 12658, held in para-15 as under:- 15. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] and in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in year 2004 at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month and that of a vegetable vendor at the rate of Rs. 6,500/- per month in the year 2006, respectively. Recently, this Court in Soman v. Jinesh James [ILR (2020) 3 Ker 1003] has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2010 at Rs. 7,500/- per month. 19. 4,500/- per month and that of a vegetable vendor at the rate of Rs. 6,500/- per month in the year 2006, respectively. Recently, this Court in Soman v. Jinesh James [ILR (2020) 3 Ker 1003] has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2010 at Rs. 7,500/- per month. 19. As per the above decision, when the accident occurred on 31.12.2010 has fixed a notional income of a coolie/worker in the year 2010 at Rs.7,500/- per month. In the instant case, the injured/appellant sustained serious injuries in the accident occurred on 14.12.2020. In the absence of any documentary evidence about the notional income of the injured though he stated he was running an auto. Basing on the above judgment Susy’s case (supra) and there would be an incremental enhancement in the case of even self-employed/individual in the unorganized sector and with respect to an unspecified job of a coolie or running auto considering the increase in cost of living an economic advancements over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie would be eligible for incremental addition of at least Rs.500/- in every subsequent years. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to be fixed with a notional income of Rs.7,500/- in the year 2010 and on incremental basis Rs.500/- in every subsequent year i.e. 500x10=5000 (from 2011 to 2020), in the year of accident which is 2020, re-fix the notional income of the appellant is Rs.12,500/- per month. 20. When the Competent Medical Board as per Ex.P/57(c) after examining the appellant assessed his disability 25%, the learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the said assessment certified by the expert body, instead of scaling down the percentage of disability to 10% by guess work without giving any proper reasoned order. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view to set-aside the findings of the learned Tribunal that the appellant/injured suffers from disability of 10% instead of 25%. Due to the re-fixation of the permanent disability of the appellant/injured 25% and his notional income at Rs.12,500/- per month, accordingly, enhance the compensation under the head of loss due to disability. 21. The next is the quantum of compensation to which the appellant/claimant is entitled to what. Due to the re-fixation of the permanent disability of the appellant/injured 25% and his notional income at Rs.12,500/- per month, accordingly, enhance the compensation under the head of loss due to disability. 21. The next is the quantum of compensation to which the appellant/claimant is entitled to what. Before considering the said aspect, it is necessary to set out legal position as emerging from the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation payable to the claimant has not taken into consideration of his monthly earnings @ 12,000/-per month, he lost his income due to injury sustained by him and he was affected with 25% permanent disability. 22. It is a well settled principle that while determining the compensation payable to appellant/claimant in the claim filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward Vs. James, (1965) 1 ALL ER 563 Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (Page 446) wherein, it was held as follows: “When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration”. 23. Further, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 389 wherein, at Para No.40, it was held as follows: “40. It is well settled principle that in granting compensation for personal injury, injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering (2) for loss of amenities, (3) shortened expectation of life, if any, (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both, and (5) medical treatment and other special damages…………”. 24. It is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon and another, (2022) 8 SCC 489 wherein, at Para Nos.11, 12 and 13 it was held as follows: 11. In Philipps v. London & South Western Railway Co. 24. It is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon and another, (2022) 8 SCC 489 wherein, at Para Nos.11, 12 and 13 it was held as follows: 11. In Philipps v. London & South Western Railway Co. [Philipps v. London & South Western Railway Co., (1879) LR 5 QBD 78 (CA)], it was held that by making a payment of compensation for the damages, the court cannot put back again the claimant into his original position. On the date of determination of the compensation, he is being compensated but he cannot sue again, therefore, the compensation must be full and final while determining the same. 12. In Mediana, In re [Mediana, In re, 1900 AC 113 (HL)], it is said that the determination for an amount of compensation to the damages is an extreme task. What may be adequate amount for a wrongful act and can it be compensated by money, particularly towards pain and suffering. By an arithmetical calculation, it cannot be decided what may be the exact amount of money which would represent the pain and suffering to a person, but as per recognised principles, damages must be paid. 13. In H.West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard [H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard, 1964 AC 326 : (1963) 2 WLR 1359 (HL)], it was held that payment of compensation in terms of money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered, however the courts must consider to award sums, which may be reasonable. Simultaneously, uniformity in the general method of approach is also required. Thereby, possible comparable injuries can be compensated by comparable awards……….” 25. If the above judgments are read together, the issue of adequacy and grant of just and reasonable amount of compensation requires consideration is what should be the basis for determination and what may be the reason for awarding such compensation. Applying the uniform methodology for determination the compensation, comparable to the injuries, thereby a person can lead his life though his physical frame cannot be reversed. In the present case of nature, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation in contrary to the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgments, which is not just and reasonable. 26. Applying the uniform methodology for determination the compensation, comparable to the injuries, thereby a person can lead his life though his physical frame cannot be reversed. In the present case of nature, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation in contrary to the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgments, which is not just and reasonable. 26. In the instant case, the injured sustained 25% disability as per Ex.P/57(c) dated 21.09.2021 issued by the District Medical Board, Mandla, in support of the disability certificate, Dr. Suraj Singh Marawi examined as PW-3 stated that he was a member of the Medical Board, on 21.09.2021 on the same day Ramesh Sahu came to the hospital and he was examined the injured and found that one old fracture in the Tibia bone and pubic bone of his left leg, and he was not able to bend his leg completely and upon an examination they issued disability certificate of 25% disability. In support of his evidence, the appellant/injured PW-1 has stated that before the accident he was healthy and used to support his family. Due to the said accident, he suffered serious injury which has adversely affected. He was not able to done the said work and he became incapable, due to which, he has deprived of his future income. He suffered physical and mental agony. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver i.e. the first respondent (Deepak Kumar Sahu). On perusal of discharge summary, he was admitted in the hospital on 16.12.2020 and discharged on 19.12.2021 and he will not be in a position to enjoy the life and, therefore, he seeks to enhance the amount of compensation. 27. In the present case, the income of the appellant/injured is concerned, the learned Tribunal committed an error while evaluating the future earnings without taking into consideration of his notional income at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per month is contrary to the above judgment (surpa). Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal needs to be modified under the head of loss of future earnings by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC). 28. It may be appropriate to mention here, while laying down the legal position with regard to awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the case of Kavita Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC). 28. It may be appropriate to mention here, while laying down the legal position with regard to awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the case of Kavita Vs. Deepak and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 604 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court relied on the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), to award compensation. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Raj Kumar’s case (supra) wherein, at Para Nos.4, 5 & 9, it was held as follows: “4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K.Subramonia Iyer Vs. T.Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376 , R.D.Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. – 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker Vs. Willoughby – 1970 AC 467 ) 5. The heads under which the compensation need to be awarded in personal injury cases as under: Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages): (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages): (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity) In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actual and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses – item (iii) – depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages – items (iv), (v) and (vi) – involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability – item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability. 6. …….. 7. ………. 8. …….. 9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability. 6. …….. 7. ………. 8. …….. 9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.” 29. In the present case, the Tribunal has not followed the principles laid down in the above said judgments (supra) committed an error in not applying the multiplier in terms of monthly earning @ 12,500/- per month in view of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) wherein, it was held at Para-21, as under: “21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 30. The Claims Tribunal committed an illegality in awarding a meager amount of compensation payable to the claimant without following the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court stated supra. 31. The Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under various conventional heads. As per the decision in Raj Kumar’s case (supra), loss of future earnings and the loss of earning capacity have to be assessed on the basis of the evidence. The claimant, running an auto by the date of the accident. His notional income has already been fixed @ 12,500/- per month by applying the principles in judgment of Susy’s case (surpa). The learned Tribunal has failed to consider the appropriate income of the claimant and did not award just and reasonable compensation under different heads. As such, it would be appropriate to consider the quantum by taking a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month as the income of the injured on the date of accident. 32. The Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board under Ex.P/57(c) show 25% disability and the same was confirmed by this Doctor Suraj Singh Marawi PW-3 who examined the injured in the Medical Board and stated the appellant has suffered 25% of the disability. It is further stated that if injured was properly treated for a period of five years, the disability may disappear or may reduce to greater or lesser extent. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 and Ex.P-57(c) the disability certificate taking 25% disability of the appellant would be just and reasonable. The learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the said assessment certified by the expert body, in the said circumstances, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant suffers from disability of 10% instead of 25% is by guess work. Thus, the calculation of compensation towards loss of future earnings, as per the judgment of Raj Kumar’s case (supra) will be as follows :- a) Annual income before the accident Rs.12,500x12= 1,50,000/- …. Rs.1,50,000/- b) Loss of future earnings per annum (25% of the prior annual income) …. Rs.37,500/- c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age (appellant’s age was 35 years at the time of the accident) …. 16 d) Loss of future earnings (37,500x16) ….Rs.6,00,000/- 33. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings. 34. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.,1,14,351/- towards medical expenses. Rs.37,500/- c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age (appellant’s age was 35 years at the time of the accident) …. 16 d) Loss of future earnings (37,500x16) ….Rs.6,00,000/- 33. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings. 34. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.,1,14,351/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has committed an error while awarding compensation under Medical Expenses actually which was spent by the claimant. He produced bunch of medical bills under Exs.P-9 to P-54 showing that he spent an amount of Rs.1,16,725/-. The appellant/claimant, who was running an auto and is not supposed to be that much of meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use. The claimant has remained for few days in the hospital and he must have incurred more expenses. Therefore, the claimant has been awarded Rs.2,50,000/-towards medical expenses as he sustained serious injuries also needs further treatment for five years as stated by PW-3 that the injured was not able to bend left leg completely. Therefore, the appellant is entitled an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. The compensation under the head of medical expenses is enhanced from Rs.1,14,351 to Rs.2,50,000/-. 35. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of amenities as the person who is suffering permanent disability 25% cannot lead a normal life. P.W.3 (Doctor), who has examined him, stated that if treated him for a period of five years the disability may reduce lesser extent. He has further stated he was not able to bend left leg completely. Therefore, he needs to give a proper treatment for a period of five years to reduce the disability may disappear or reduce lesser extent. The compensation is only the means to grant some support for the loss he suffered with which he is expected to live for the rest of his life. By making a payment of compensation for damages, the Court cannot be put back again the claimant into his original position. On the date of determination of compensation, he is being compensated but he cannot sue again. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded towards the loss of amenities of life. 36. Further, the learned Tribunal not awarded amount towards loss of past earnings for the period of treatment. The accident occurred on 14.12.2020. On the date of determination of compensation, he is being compensated but he cannot sue again. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded towards the loss of amenities of life. 36. Further, the learned Tribunal not awarded amount towards loss of past earnings for the period of treatment. The accident occurred on 14.12.2020. He underwent treatment as inpatient and spent huge amount under Exhibit P/9 to P/54, normally the patient was advised two months bed rest because of serious injuries sustained by him. Altogether, for two months, he lost his earnings. By taking into consideration of the evidence, the loss of earnings for two months (60 days) as stated above, would be come to Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500x2= Rs.25,000/). As such, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of ‘loss of earnings’. 37. Apart from that, the amount under another conventional head i.e., Attendant Charges needs to be awarded to the injured, as the Tribunal awarded meager amount towards attendant changes. Since the injured was hospitalized approximately 10 days and taking bed rest for two months. As such, the attendant may also loss of earnings. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500x2) towards attendant charges. Hence, an amount of Rs.7,000/- towards attendant charges deserves to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. 38. The Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. This Court is of the view that Rs.25,000/- is sufficient for nourishment against Rs.10,000/-. 39. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7000/- towards pain and suffering. It needs to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- as the injured was suffered with serious injuries and he was not able to bend his right leg completely, definitely he would have suffered a lot. The sufferance of injured cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, the compensation under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.1,00,000/. 40. The learned Tribunal committed error not awarding amount under the head of transportation, therefore, it needs to award amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. 41. The sufferance of injured cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, the compensation under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.1,00,000/. 40. The learned Tribunal committed error not awarding amount under the head of transportation, therefore, it needs to award amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. 41. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of ‘just compensation’ observed as under: “Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 42. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference. . S.No Name of the Head Enhanced/Reduced by this Court in Rs. 1 Loss of future earnings 6,00,000/- (12500X12= 1,50,000-25%= 37500/- X 16= 6,00,000/-) 2 Medical Expenses 2,50,000/- 3 Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- 4 Loss of earnings during the period of treatment & rest 25,000/- 5 Attendant Charges 25,000/- 6 Transportation +Extra Nourishment (10000+25000=35000) 35,000/- 7 Pain & Suffering 1,00,000/- Total 11,35,000/- (-) Compensation awarded By the Tribunal 1,86,351/- Enhanced amount 9,48,649/- 43. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant in this appeal for enhancement of Rs.3,00,000/-. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just and proper. In the present case, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable and the claimant is entitled to more compensation though he might not have claimed the same at the time of filing this appeal. 44. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference and thereby enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,86,351/- to Rs.11,35,000/-. 45. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with costs and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.1,86,351/- to Rs.11,35,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, against the Respondents jointly and severally. (ii) Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out. (iii) The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the amount awarded (As per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2019 ACJ 559 (SC)). (iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest and costs, by filing a proper application before the learned Tribunal. (v) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above. (vi) The record be sent back to the Tribunal within three weeks from this day. (vii) As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.