JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the original opponent no.3- National Insurance Company Limited, Surat, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 31.03.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) and Additional District Judge, Bharuch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.776 of 2007. By the said impugned judgment and award, the learned Judge has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimant holding opponent nos. 2 and 3 negligent to the extent of 70% and opponent nos. 4 and 5 to the extent of 30%. The Tribunal has further directed the aforesaid opponents jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.38,72,917/- as compensation to the original claimant, together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 2.0. The facts of the case in nutshell are reproduced herein under: 2.1. The injured claimant along with other passengers was traveling in Tata Sumo bearing registration no.GJ-23-A-572. On 18.03.2007 while they were returning from Ajmer and had reached near village Dudu on Jaipur- Ajmer National Highway No.8 at around 11.30 pm, the opponent no.2 who was driving a open Truck-trailer bearing registration No.RJ-14-GA-2008 came from behind in excessive and uncontrollable speed and successfully overtake the Tata Sumo. However, since the said Truck- trailer which was 30 to 35 ft long took sudden turn to proceed on Jaipur – Ajmer road without giving any side signal or without giving any indication to the vehicle following, resulted into the accident causing grievous hurt to the original claimant. 2.2. The claim petition was thus preferred by the injured claim through his wife as power of attorney holder on 20.10.2007. The said claim petition was filed seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.63,77,300/- with proportionate costs and interest. The said claim petition was registered as MACP No.776 of 2007. 2.3. At the time of accident, the opponent no.2 was joined in the same claim petition as owner of the offending vehicle – Truck – trailer. The said vehicle was insured with opponent no.3- National Insurance Company Limited – appellant herein, whereas opponent no.4 was joined as owner – driver of Tata Sumo vehicle and opponent no.5 as insurer of the said vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with opponent no.3- National Insurance Company Limited – appellant herein, whereas opponent no.4 was joined as owner – driver of Tata Sumo vehicle and opponent no.5 as insurer of the said vehicle. Pending the claim petition, opponent no.1 who is the driver and owner of the vehicle was deleted pursuant to the order passed below Exh.26. The opponent no.2 had appeared before the Tribunal and had contested the claim petition by filing a written statement. Similarly, opponent no.4 had also appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.82. Opponent no.4 had strongly objected to the liability alleged and had contended that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the opponent no.1 i.e. the driver of the Truck – trailer. Opponents nos. 3 & 5 i.e. respective Insurance Company have sought permission at Exh.39 and Exh.40 respectively under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was allowed by the Tribunal. The written statement has also been filed by the opponent no.3 Insurance Company at Exh.32 and by opponent no.5 at Exh.34. 2.4. The Tribunal has framed the following issues at Exh.35. “1. Whether it is proved that the claimant sustained injuries on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident? 2. What amount, the claimant is entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents? 3. What order? 2.5. Upon appreciation of the evidence and the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the original opponent no.4- Insurance Company. 3. This Court by order dated 13.06.2017 had admitted the appeal and in Civil Application seeking stay against the impugned judgment and award, had directed the appellant- Insurance Company to deposit the entire amount of award before the Tribunal which was further directed to be deposited in the Fixed Deposit with any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year. The Court was of the opinion that the amount was not to be disbursed at that stage. Learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company had pointed out that the original claimants have withdrawn the document at Exhs. 98 and 99 as recorded in the order dated 20.08.2017. The Court was of the opinion that the amount was not to be disbursed at that stage. Learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company had pointed out that the original claimants have withdrawn the document at Exhs. 98 and 99 as recorded in the order dated 20.08.2017. Though notice was duly served upon the original claimant, no appearance was entered. Noticing the sizable amount, this Court directed to continue with the Fixed Deposit of the award amount with any nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years after completion of one year and thereafter to renew the same from time to time till the final disposal of the captioned appeal. The liberty was reserved in favour of the original claimant to apply for appropriate direction for disbursement. 4. The original claimant has been subsequently represented through learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim. Mr. Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate has entered his appearance on behalf of respondent no.4. Though the Rule was duly served upon the respondent no.3, no appearance has been entered. 5. The matter was notified for final hearing. Noticing the mutual understanding of the learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the respondent no.5- original claimant, the matter was taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned advocate for the respective parties. 6. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, had referred to the proposed calculation. Learned advocate has fairly pointed out that the present appeal at the instance of the appellant -Insurance Company is restricted mainly on two grounds. Firstly, according to the learned advocate the award amount is required to be reduced on the aspect of the future prospective rise as determined by the Tribunal and secondly the loss of actual income after the date of accident. So far as rest of the grounds on which the amount of compensation is considered, it was jointly submitted by the learned advocates for the respective parties that there prevailed broad consensus between them, the Tribunal has rightly considered the relevant factors and hence calls for no interference. The learned Advocates have jointly urged to consider the last column of calculation i.e. as per submission of learned advocate for the claimant and urged to modify the impugned judgment and award, in aforesaid terms. Learned advocate had also sought for Rs. The learned Advocates have jointly urged to consider the last column of calculation i.e. as per submission of learned advocate for the claimant and urged to modify the impugned judgment and award, in aforesaid terms. Learned advocate had also sought for Rs. 1,11,523/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges as against Rs,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It was urged to enhance the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- as awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering to Rs.50,000/-. Learned advocate conceded to the fact that no enhancement appeal is filed by claimant however in fact of the case has urged to determine the just and proper compensation. 7. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the contesting respondentoriginal claimant at the outset has submitted that he was unable to justify the error committed by the Tribunal as regards determination of income, in the facts of the case. As against that, he has urged to reconsider the loss of actual income for six months instead of two months as awarded by the Tribunal. Learned advocate has placed reliance upon the nature of injury sustained and has urged to consider 50% functional disability instead of 25% disability as applied by the Tribunal. He has therefore urged this Court to pass an appropriate order. He had further requested to disburse the entire award amount in light of the fact that accident relates to year 2007 and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the entire award amount is lying in the Fixed Deposit. 8. Mr. Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent no.4 though entered his appearance, however had failed to appear at the time of hearing of the present appeal. 9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award and the calculation placed for consideration before us, it transpires on record that the original claimant was aged 52 years at the time of accident and was working out of the country. The Tribunal has taken into consideration his passport produced at Exh.43 which indicates his place of residence at Leytonstone, London. The Tribunal has upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence noticed that such a passport was issued by High Commission of India, London on 9.12.1991. His visa was for an indefinite period which is evident from entry dated 20.12.2000. The Tribunal has taken into consideration his passport produced at Exh.43 which indicates his place of residence at Leytonstone, London. The Tribunal has upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence noticed that such a passport was issued by High Commission of India, London on 9.12.1991. His visa was for an indefinite period which is evident from entry dated 20.12.2000. Thus, the Tribunal has believed that the original claimant was a British citizen w.e.f. 20.12.2000. The Tribunal has also taken note of Exh.44 wherein it has transpired that the original claimant had obtained passport form issued by the office of the Birmingham (UK) on 10.08.2001 which was valid till 09.08.2011 wherein his place of residence was indicated at Bolton, UK. With such facts brought on record, the Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant was a British Citizen on the date of accident. 10.1 In such circumstances, the Tribunal had proceeded to examine the claim petition by applying ratio of standard as well as cost of living as applicable in case of citizens based in the UK. The Tribunal has further taken into consideration the oral evidence of the original claimant about working with Glenn & Co. (Essex) Limited. According to his evidence, he used to work for 8 hours a day and was therefore earning monthly income between £1324 to £1500. The aforesaid claim has been substantiated by leading cogent material on record in the form of salary slip which has been accepted at Exh.98. It clearly suggests that the claimant had worked for 15 hours in a week in the aforesaid company, whereby he had earned an amount £90.00 (18 hours multiplied by £ 5.00) in a week i.e. on 3.11.2006. The Tribunal has, though, accepted the aforesaid claim by determining the monthly income of the original claimant as £360(£90.00 multiplied by four weeks), however, later on has taken into consideration the minimum wages as applicable in the UK. Reliance was placed on Exh.100 which is the Highfield Minimum Wage Project indicating the National Minimum Wage as £4.85 per hour for all workers aged 22 and more years and £4.10 per hour for all workers who are between 18 & 21. Reliance was placed on Exh.100 which is the Highfield Minimum Wage Project indicating the National Minimum Wage as £4.85 per hour for all workers aged 22 and more years and £4.10 per hour for all workers who are between 18 & 21. The Tribunal has also taken note of Exh.101 which is National Minimum Wage Rate prescribed by the Government of UK wherein it has clearly transpired that in the year 2007, £5.52 was a rate prescribed to be paid to the person / workers who fall within the age group of 22 and above years. The Tribunal further noticed that though salary slip of year 2006 is admitted at Exh.99, however the accident occurred in the year 2007. In such circumstances, the Tribunal upon appreciation of the aforesaid documents produced at Exhs. 100 and 101 has applied minimum wage rate as applicable to the workers aged about 22 and more years i.e. £5.52 per hour and has accordingly fixed the monthly income of the claimant as £44.16 multiplied by 30 days which is equal to £1324.80. The Tribunal has thereafter considered Exh.116 which is the copy of the conversion rate of Great Britain Pound as prescribed by Reserve Bank of India as on 15.3.2007. The conversion rate prescribed at the relevant time by the Reserve Bank of India was £1 =Rs.85.50. Considering the date of accident i.e. 18.03.2007, the Tribunal has applied aforesaid conversion rate and had accordingly determined the monthly income of the original claimant as Rs.1,05,984/-. The Tribunal has further considered date of birth of the claimant as reflected in his passport at Exh.44 as 52 years and has adopted a multiplier of 11 in view of the schedule prescribed in Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The future loss of income is accordingly determined as Rs.12,71,808/ - pa and by applying 25% as reduction in earning capacity applying 11 multiplier has determined Rs.34,97,472/- towards future loss of income. 10.2. Again, the actual loss of income is considered for period of two months taking into consideration the discharge card produced at Exh.109 wherein it clearly suggested that the claimant had undergone hospitalization for a period from 22.03.2007 to 25.03.2007 and thereafter bed-rest for considerable period and has accordingly awarded actual loss of income as Rs.2,11,968/-. 10.3. 10.2. Again, the actual loss of income is considered for period of two months taking into consideration the discharge card produced at Exh.109 wherein it clearly suggested that the claimant had undergone hospitalization for a period from 22.03.2007 to 25.03.2007 and thereafter bed-rest for considerable period and has accordingly awarded actual loss of income as Rs.2,11,968/-. 10.3. Apart from the aforesaid compensation awarded under the head of future loss of income and actual loss of income, the Tribunal has also awarded compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. The compensation under the different heads i.e. Rs.15000/- towards the attendant and special diets, Rs.75000/- towards transportation expenses. The medical bills have been brought on record by the original claimant at Exhs. 110 and 111 which suggested the expenses incurred by the original claimant towards medicines and hospital bills to the tune of Rs.44,645/-. The Tribunal has therefore, accepted the case of the original claimant by awarding Rs.48,477/- towards medical bills. The Tribunal has thus determined a total award of compensation of RS.38,72,917/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% pa from the date of claim petition till its actual realization. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the calculation placed on record by the learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company in light of the aforesaid findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while determining the award amount of Rs.38,72,917/-. The learned advocate for the respondent – original claimant as well as learned advocate for appellant – Insurance Company has arrived at broad consensus as had agreed to adhere to calculation as per submission of claimant. 12. The learned advocate for the respondent – original claimant as well as learned advocate for appellant – Insurance Company has arrived at broad consensus as had agreed to adhere to calculation as per submission of claimant. 12. For the sake of convenience, the calculation placed for consideration before us by the learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company and as agreed upon by the learned respondent – original claimant is reproduced herein under: Computation of Compensation As per Award under challenge As per submission of insurance company Submission of Claimant (i) Actual income on date of accident 1324 pounds per month Rs.1,05,984/- pm 360 pounds per month Rs.28,800/- pm 360 pounds per month Rs.30,780/- pm (360 X Rs.85.5 per pound exchange rate at the time of accident exhibit 116) ii Future Prospective Rise Rs.33,858/ pm (Rs.30,780/- pm X 10% future rise= Rs.3078/- pm) Rs.4,06,296/- pa ii Injuries Linear fracture of temporal bone and patron bone, small hemorrhagic contusion on right high parietal lobe etc. Injury over Left ear Fracture left hand Linear fracture of temporal bone and patron bone, small hemorrhagic contusion on right high parietal lobe etc. Injury over Left ear Fracture left hand Linear fracture of temporal bone and patron bone, small hemorrhagic contusion on right high parietal lobe etc. Injury over Left ear Fracture left hand Iii Disability assessed by the doctor Neurological disability 29% ENT (ear) disability 22% Orthopedic disability 20% Neurological disability 29% ENT (ear) disability 22% Orthopedic disability 20% Neurological disability 29% ENT (ear) disability 22% Orthopedic disability 20% Disability assessed by the Tribunal 25% 25% 25% iv Functional disability - 50% V Loss of future income /earning capacity Rs.12,71,808 /- per annum (Rs.1,05,984/ - pm X 12 months X 25% disability) Rs.86,400/- per annum (Rs.28,800/- pm X 12 months X 25% disability) Rs.2,03,148/- per annum (Rs.4,06,296/ - p.a X 50% disability) vi Multiplier 11 11 11 A Future loss of income Rs.34,97,472 /- Rs.9,50,400/- Rs.22,34,628 /- B Medical expenses Rs.48,477/- Rs.48,477/- Rs.48,477/- C Special diet, transportation & attendant charges Rs. 90,000/- Rs.40,000/- (13 days indoor patient & air fare) Rs.1,11,523/- (13 days indoor patient & air fare) D Mental pain, shock and suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.25000/- Rs.50000/- E Actual loss of income Rs.2,11,968/- (Rs.1,05,984/ - pm X 2 months) Rs.57,600/- (Rs.28,800/- pm X 2 months) Rs.1,84,680/- (Rs.30780/- X 6 months) F Total compensation Rs.38,70,917/- Rs.11,21,477/- Rs.26,29,308/- G Refund Rs.12,41,609/- H Interest rate 13. There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation. In fact, there is no challenge to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal at the instance of the original claimant. The challenge by the appellant – Insurance Company is only on the limited issue of computation of compensation mainly on the ground of future loss of income and actual loss of income. In view of this admitted position, we are required to decide the present appeal on the aforesaid aspects only. 14. So far as issue of determination of future loss of income is concerned, before the Tribunal the income of the original claimant was examined on the basis of the National Minimum Wage prescribed by Government of UK which is marked at Exh.101 wherein it has clearly transpired that the prescribed rate of wages was £5.52 to be paid to the persons / workers whose age to be fall between 22 and above years. Though, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the aforesaid wage rate i.e. £5.52, however has committed serious error in not taking into consideration the evidence brought on record through the original claimant of having permission to work for limited hours. Learned advocates have therefore, conceded to the fact that the claimant was entitled to £220.8 as against five working days in a week and accordingly was entitled to £883.2for four weeks i.e. per month. The exchange rate prevailing at the time of accident in view of the Notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India which is placed on record at Exh.116 was £1 = Rs.85.5 ps. Accordingly, the monthly income of the original claimant is required to be computed as £360 X Rs.85.5ps = Rs. 30,780/-. As rightly pointed out by the learned advocates for the respective parties that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the addition was required to be made for the future prospects of the claimant. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Courts are required to take into consideration not only the actual income at the time of death but are also expected to make additions by taking note of future prospects. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Courts are required to take into consideration not only the actual income at the time of death but are also expected to make additions by taking note of future prospects. Later on in the case of Pranay sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court not only approved the aforesaid observations made in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) but also held further which reads as under: “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 15. In view of the aforesaid principle laid down with regard to addition to be made to the future prospects of the claimant, considering the age of the claimant of 52 years at the time of accident, 10% rise is required to be made to the future prospects. Accordingly, the future prospective rise is determined as Rs.33,858/- per month (Rs.30,780/-pm X 10% future rise = Rs.3,078/- per month). Considering the aforesaid future prospective rise, the amount per year is determined at Rs.4,06,296/-. 16. Our attention was also invited to the nature of injuries sustained by the original claimant. The relevant observations of the Tribunal were referred to and relied upon by the learned advocates for the respective parties wherein the disability of the original claimant is assessed by the Tribunal as 25%. 16. Our attention was also invited to the nature of injuries sustained by the original claimant. The relevant observations of the Tribunal were referred to and relied upon by the learned advocates for the respective parties wherein the disability of the original claimant is assessed by the Tribunal as 25%. As against the aforesaid observations, learned counsels have jointly urged to consider 50% functional disability of the original claimant in light of the nature of injuries sustained. It is evident from the observation of the Tribunal that the claimant had sustained Linear fracture of temporal bone and patron bone, small hemorrhagic contusion was also noticed on right high parietal lobe. The claimant had also sustained injuries over the left ear and fracture on the left hand. The aforesaid injuries had led to 29% neurological disability and 22% ENT (ear) disability and orthopedic disability to the extent of 20% as assessed by the Tribunal. Based on the aforesaid evaluation of the disability by a medical expert, in light of the fact that the claimant having sustained injuries at the age of 52 years, where there are less chances to recovery, we are inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsels to treat the functional disability of 50% of the body as a whole. Accordingly, future loss of income is determined as Rs.2,03,148/-(Rs.4,06,296/- pa X 50% disability). Looking at the age of the claimant, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal by applying a multiplier of 11. Hence, future loss of income is determined as Rs.22,34,628/-. 17. So far as compensation under the head of actual loss of income is concerned, for the reasons recorded earlier the actual income of the original claimants is determined as Rs.30,780/- per month. Noticing the relevant observations of the Tribunal, with regard to the treatment undergone by the original claimant, has considered actual loss of income for two months. At the same time, the Tribunal has also noticed that though the evidence of the claimant had been brought on record that he had remained bed rest for six months and he had traveled back to India for lodging of the proceedings and thereby suffered loss of income for 180 days, the Tribunal refused to consider the compensation under the head of actual loss of income for a period of six months. We could notice that the claimant had obtained a visa from the UK Government and had arrived in Mumbai, India on 5.3.2007. The present claim petition was lodged through his wife before the Tribunal on 20.10.2007. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the case of the claimant of compensation for loss of actual income for a period of six months deserves consideration. 18. For the foregoing reasons, present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 31.03.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) and Additional District Judge, Bharuch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.776 of 2007 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount of compensation is re-determined in light of the broad consensus prevailing between the appellant- Insurance Company and the respondent original claimant. The amount of compensation is thus re-determined as under: 1. Future loss of income Rs. 22,34,628/- 2. Pain, shock and suffering Rs.25,000/- 3 Attendant & Special diets Rs.15,000/- 4 Actual loss of income Rs.1,84,680/- 5 Transportation Expenses Rs.75000/- 6. Medical Bills Rs.48,477/- 7 Total Amount Rs.23,98,105/- 19. The amount to be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company comes to Rs. 14,74,812/- (Rs.38,72,917/- -(minus) Rs.23,98,105/-) in light of the aforesaid determination of the amount of compensation. The Tribunal is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs.14,74,812/- with interest which may have accrued on the said amount as lying in the form of Fixed Deposit with the concerned Nationalized Bank to the appellant Insurance Company. The rest of the amount i.e. after refund of Rs.14,74,812/- from the total award amount of compensation lying in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts with interest accrued till date is directed to be released and disbursed in the name of the original claimant. Let, the aforesaid exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With this, present First Appeal is allowed.