ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. Both these appeals are being decided by this common order. 2. By way of these instant misc. appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act of 1988’), the appellants/claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation and has sought modification of the judgment & award dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Judge MACT, Rajsamand in MACT Cases No.191/2012 and 193/2012, respectively, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the claimants by awarding an amount to the tune of Rs. 1,07,000/- and Rs.9,10,000/-, respectively, @ 9% p.a. in their favour, while fastening the liability upon the respondent no. 2/owner and the respondent-Insurance Company. 3. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that on 06.09.2011, Saleem and his wife Sheikh Naseem Bano along with their son met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus bearing No.RJ-23-PA-2727 on account of which, Saleem and his wife Sheikh Naseem Bano sustained grievous injuries. Thereupon, they preferred claim petitions for compensation. 4. Subsequently, learned Tribunal issued the notices. Despite being served the notice, none appeared for respondent No.1 and therefore, ex-parte proceedings was initiated against him. The respondent No.2 and respondent No.3-Insurance Company in its reply denied all averments made in the claim petition. 5. In support of their claim petition, the appellants-claimants produced 2 witnesses and exhibited documents to prove their case. Oral as well as documentary evidence were also produced to prove the case. No evidence was produced in defence. As per pleadings, issues were framed by the learned Tribunal and after hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the award in favour of the appellants/claimants and being dissatisfied from the award, the appellants have preferred the instant misc. appeals. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1005/2015 6. Learned counsel for the appellant makes a limited submission while disputing the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the grievous injury suffered by the appellant-claimant, including a fracture in his left clavicle bone and the permanent disability suffered to the extent of 14%. He submits that the learned Tribunal has disregarded the evidence available on record in form of the Injury Report (Ex.11) and the Physical Disability Certificate (Ex.12). He submits that the learned Tribunal has disregarded the evidence available on record in form of the Injury Report (Ex.11) and the Physical Disability Certificate (Ex.12). He also submits that the respondents have not rebutted the said certificate, in the absence of which the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the Physical Disability Certificate (Ex.12) while awarding the compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not providing any compensation towards the loss of future income inasmuch as the injury suffered by the appellant-claimant is a fracture in his clavicle bone, on account of which the appellant-claimant still faces difficulty in the normal course of activities and that, he is not able to move his hand properly and the movement of his shoulder is also restricted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities is also on a lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards the transportation expenses, against Rs. 20,000/- as claimed by the appellant-claimant. He further submits that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is also on the lower side and thus, the same deserves to be enhanced. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and thus, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant deserves to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has observed that the appellant-claimant used to work as a Watchman under the Daman Ganga Canal Project wherein his dearness allowance increases twice in a year and also, he took a medical leave during his treatment, on account of which he did not suffer any loss towards his income. 11. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has observed that the appellant-claimant used to work as a Watchman under the Daman Ganga Canal Project wherein his dearness allowance increases twice in a year and also, he took a medical leave during his treatment, on account of which he did not suffer any loss towards his income. It is also seen that the learned Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the appellant-claimant was not releived from his work on account of the said injury and thus, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [Civil Appeal No. 8981 of 2010 decided on 18.10.2010], the learned Tribunal was right in not awarding compensation towards the loss of future income, on account of the injury suffered by the appellant-claimant. It is also seen that the appellant-claimant has not produced any evidence with respect to the requirement of treatment in future and the expenses to be incurred thereto, and in the absence of such evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly not awarded compensation towards any medical expenses that may be incurred by the appellant-claimant in future, on account of the injury suffered by the appellant- claimant. The relevant part of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) reads as under: “13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” Therefore, this Court finds that, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that there is no actual loss of income incurred by the appellant-claimant on account of the injury sustained inasmuch as, learned Tribunal, while relying upon the evidence has categorically observed that permanent disability suffered by the appellant-claimant will not hamper his work and therefore, no compensation has been provided towards loss of future income. 12. This Court also finds that the appellant-claimant has produced Ex.16 and Ex.17 as medical bills towards his treatment, which amounts to Rs. 32 and therefore, on account of the evidence produced, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the quantum towards expenses incurred by the appellant-claimant for his treatment, on account of the injury suffered by him. It is also seen that the learned Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the appellant-claimant has not produced any discharge ticket for the period of his hospitalization on account of the injuries suffered by him, and thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount towards the head of hospitalization, in the absence of any evidence produced by the appellant-claimant. 13. It is also seen that the learned Tribunal, while considering the evidence produced, has rightly awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards transportation expenses, Rs. 2,000/- towards his special diet and Rs. 1,500/- for the loss of estates, and thus, this Court deems it fit not to grant indulgence in the same. 14. Furthermore, this Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has observed that the appellant-claimant had to take a leave of 40 days from his work, on account of the injury suffered by him and thus, while taking into consideration the salary certificate (Ex.14) for the year 2011, after deducting the annual increement and dearness allowance, the learned Tribunal has assessed the salary of the appellant-claimant as Rs. 500/- per day. 500/- per day. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly ascertained the loss of income for a period of 40 days as Rs. 20,000/-. 15. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has taken into account the fact that though the permanent disability suffered by the appellant-claimant is not with respect to the whole body, however it has been categorically observed that the appellant- claimant’s movement of the shoulder had been restricted and it is likely that he will be facing difficulties in future, on account of the said injury and thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 70,000/- towards the pain and suffering caused to the appellant-claimant on account of the said injury. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has also considered the fact that the appellant-claimant is bound to suffer difficulties while performing daily work, and thus, in view of this Court, has rightly awarded Rs. 10,000- for the loss of amenities suffered by the appellant-claimant. 16. Therefore, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court concurs with the finding of the learned Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has rightly taken into account all the factors along with the intent of the MV Act, which is a beneficial legislation, while awarding a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,07,000/- at the interest of 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim, and thus, this Court deems it fit not to grant indulgence in the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 23.02.2015. 17. Accordingly, in the light of discussion made hereinabove, the appeal, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1005/2015, preferred by the appellant-claimant is dismissed. No costs. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 963/2015 18. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation and therefore, the award deserves to be modified and the compensation deserves to be enhanced. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries sustained by her in that accident is serious in nature as the claimant-Sheikh Naseem Bano was engaged in doing stitching work and sustained permanent disability to the extent of 80% which resulted into 100% loss of income. 19. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries sustained by her in that accident is serious in nature as the claimant-Sheikh Naseem Bano was engaged in doing stitching work and sustained permanent disability to the extent of 80% which resulted into 100% loss of income. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants/appellants were not awarded under the head ‘Future Prospects’ the appellant/claimant-Sheikh Naseem Bano was 30 years at the time of incident and she has become virtually incapable of doing anything on account of the injuries cause to her. He further submits that the learned Tribunal seriously erred in awarding meager compensation under the pain and suffering, thus under this head, amount should be enhanced. He also submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal towards loss of income suffered during the medical treatment, is slightly on a lower side and thus, the same needs to be enhanced. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award and the same does not call for any interference. He further submits that inasmuch as this is a matter wherein the claimants have suffered injuries, the future prospects, towards loss of income has rightly not been considered by the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation. 21. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 22. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has observed that the Disability Certificate (Ex.20) clearly stipulates that the appellant-claimant has suffered the permanent disability to the extent of 80%, however, has erred, while calculating the loss of income on account of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant-claimant, the learned Tribunal has considered the permanent disability to the extent of 70%, and thus, this Court deems it fit to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of loss of income while taking the permanent disability suffered by the appellant-claimant to be 80%. It is also important to take note of the fact that the appellant-claimant’s left arm has been amputed from the shoulder on account of which she would be facing hardship in day to day activities too, apart from earning her livelihood. 23. It is also important to take note of the fact that the appellant-claimant’s left arm has been amputed from the shoulder on account of which she would be facing hardship in day to day activities too, apart from earning her livelihood. 23. Also, looking to the factual matrix of the case and applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : 2017 16 SCC 680 , Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104 along with Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar : AIR 2020 SC4424, the instant misc. appeal are partly allowed and the award passed by the learned MACT, Pali in MACT Case No. 193/2012 stands modified to the extent of awarding Future Prospect for loss of income, and calculating the loss of income while considering permanent disability to the extent of 80%. After this Court came to the conclusion that the award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced and modified, both the counsel were directed to submit the calculation and the compensation is enhanced in the following manner:- Monthly Income assessed by the Tribunal Rs.4,350/- Applying the multiplier on the said income and taking into consideration 80% permanent disability suffered by the claimant (4,350X17X80%) Rs. 7,09,920/- Applying future prospects @ 40% i.e. 7,09,920 + 40% of 7,09,920/- [A] Rs. 9,93,888/- (Add) Loss of Income for the period of Hospitalization (as awarded by the Tribunal) [B] Rs. 26,100/- (Add) Medical Bills [C] Rs. 2,516/- (Add) Traveling expenses [D] Rs.10,000/- (Add) Special Diet [E] Rs. 3,000/- (Add) Loss of Estates [F] Rs. 2,000/- (Add) Compensation towards Hospitalization for 20 days (as awarded by the Tribunal) [G] Rs.15,000/- (Add) Attendant Charges for 20 days (as awarded by the Tribunal) [H] Rs. 30,000/- Pain and suffering, Loss of Amenities, Loss of Expectation including shortening of normal longevity (as awarded by the Tribunal), i.e. (I) Rs.2,00,000/- TOTAL (A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I) Rs.12,82,504/- Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs.9,10,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 3,72,504/- 24. The appellant-claimant is entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,72,504/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this award. Accordingly, the appeal, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 963/2015, preferred by the appellant is partly allowed. 25. 3,72,504/- 24. The appellant-claimant is entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,72,504/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this award. Accordingly, the appeal, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 963/2015, preferred by the appellant is partly allowed. 25. The amount, if any, already paid by the respondent-Insurance Company, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. 26. No order as to costs.