JUDGMENT : Nisha M. Thakore, J. 1. The present appeal and the cross-objections are filed by the Insurance company and the original claimants respectively under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 21.03.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad city in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.663 of 2001. 1.1 The original claim petition was preferred by the injured claimant Piyushkumar Pravinchandra Mehta under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.44,55,000/- with proportionate costs and interest which came to be partly allowed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.35,01,700/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization. The opponent nos.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. The Tribunal had also issued further directions with regard to the deposit of award amount and investment of 70% of such amount in any Nationalized bank in the name of the claimants and remaining 30% of the award amount was directed to be paid to the original claimants. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised in the present appeal, in nutshell, are as under:- 2.1 On 5th April, 2001 at about 10:30 hours, the original claimant had gone to the Temple of Saibaba. At that time, he was standing with his scooter on the correct side of the road in a stationary position and the engine of the scooter was also off. The opponent no.1 – driver, driving the truck bearing registration no.RJ-19 1G-1752 came from Chitrasani on the wrong side of the road in rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed and thereby dashed with the original claimant. Resultantly, the claimant was dragged by the truck up to the distance of 5 ft. The claimant had sustained serious injuries on various parts of his body. In this regard, a complaint was lodged with Palanpur Taluka Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R. no.52 of 2001. 2.2 The original claimant having sustained damages because of the tortious act of the opponent no.1 – driver of the truck, approached the MACT, Ahmedabad by preferring claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. In this regard, a complaint was lodged with Palanpur Taluka Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R. no.52 of 2001. 2.2 The original claimant having sustained damages because of the tortious act of the opponent no.1 – driver of the truck, approached the MACT, Ahmedabad by preferring claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. Such a claim petition was preferred through his wife as the claimant was in an unconscious state and in coma. The claim petition was registered as MACP no.663 of 2001. 2.3 Apart from the driver of the offending truck being joined as opponent no.1, the owner of the truck was also joined as opponent no.2 and since the offending truck was insured, the opponent no.3 was joined as the insurance company of the said truck. 2.4 Before the trial Court, though the summons were duly served upon the opponent nos.1 and 2 – driver and owner of the offending vehicle - truck, they had chosen not to contest the claim petition and hence, ex-parte proceedings were conducted qua them. So far as the opponent no.3 – insurance company of the offending vehicle – truck is concerned, it objected to the claim petition by filing a written statement at Exh.30 denying specifically the averments raised in the claim petition. A separate application was also filed under Section 170 of the Act at Exh.67, which was allowed by the Tribunal. 2.5 Considering the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal had framed issues at Exh.65, the same reads as under:- 1. Whether the applicant proves that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver(s) of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled for the damages? If yes, what amount? 3. What order and award? Upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal recorded the findings on the above referred issues, as under : 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order. 3. As per final order. 2.6 The Tribunal while considering the issue no.1 as regards the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle – truck is concerned, took into consideration the evidence of the wife of the original claimant viz. Shilpaben Piyushkumar Mehta, who has been examined at Exh.66. 2. As per final order. 3. As per final order. 2.6 The Tribunal while considering the issue no.1 as regards the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle – truck is concerned, took into consideration the evidence of the wife of the original claimant viz. Shilpaben Piyushkumar Mehta, who has been examined at Exh.66. Though she was not an eye-witness to the accident, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the relevant documentary evidence more particularly the copy of the FIR produced at Mark 5/1, copy of two panchnama of place of accident drawn by the Police Exhs.43 and 44, copy of the charge-sheet filed by the Police against the driver of the offending vehicle – truck at Exh.53, took into consideration the evidence of one witness Manubhai Dharmabhai Prajapati, who has been examined at Exh.71. The said witness is an eyewitness to the accident, as while he was stepping down from the stairs of the Saibaba temple at Palanpur, he had noticed that the original claimant was going towards his scooter parked near the temple, whereas the offending vehicle – truck was coming from wrong side in an excessive speed from Chitramani road, which resulted into dash with Piyushkumar. The witness had thereafter seen Piyushkumar lying on the road with serious injuries noticed over his forehead, eyes, hands, legs and profuse bleeding was also noticed from the aforesaid wounds. The said witness has also noticed that the Ambulance had reached the place of accident and panchnama was drawn in his presence, wherein he has been described as an eye-witness. The said witness has categorically deposed before the Tribunal that the truck driver had not stopped after the accident and ran away with the vehicle. The Tribunal noticed that though he has been cross-examined, nothing contradictory has been brought on record in his evidence. The Tribunal further noticed that the panchnama of place of offence produced at Exhs.43 and 44 indicates that the place of accident was 1.5 ft. away from the divider. The tyre marks of the truck were also found. The blood stain marks were also noticed from the place of accident which covered an area of almost 3 ft. The glass pieces were also found at the place of the accident. The scooter of the claimant was found parked nearby the road side. away from the divider. The tyre marks of the truck were also found. The blood stain marks were also noticed from the place of accident which covered an area of almost 3 ft. The glass pieces were also found at the place of the accident. The scooter of the claimant was found parked nearby the road side. Considering overall evidence, the Tribunal answered the issue of rash and negligent driving against the opponent no.1 – driver, in affirmative. 2.7 On the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal upon overall appreciation of the evidence in light of the documentary evidence brought on record, recorded the findings that the injured claimant was aged around 35 years at the time of accident and was working with Shri B.K. District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Palanpur. The salary slips of the claimant were produced on record at Exhs.87 & 88 reflecting the income of Rs.9,881/- per month. The insurance company had objected to the aforesaid monthly income by seeking deduction of Rs.4,390.70 ps. and to consider net salary of Rs.5,222.30 ps. for the purpose of determination of future loss of income. The actual loss of income sought for was objected to be restricted for the period of six months. The Court, noticing the peculiar facts of the case and the impairment caused to the claimant, taking a sympathetic view determined the income of the petitioner to be assessed as Rs.10,000/- per month. The disability certificates produced at Exhs.73 and 75 were considered by the Tribunal which reflected permanent orthopedic impairment to the extent of 92.4% for the body as a whole and permanent neurological disability to the extent of 47.91% for the body as a whole. Noticing the aforesaid disability, the Tribunal formed an opinion that obviously the claimant condition suggests that his physical disability is likely to sustain for rest of his life and looking at the age of the claimant i.e. 35 years, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 16 and accordingly determined the future loss of income at Rs.19,20,000/-. The Tribunal had considered the actual loss of income for 5 years and had accordingly determined an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards actual loss of income. The medical bills amounting to Rs.4,67,082/- were produced before the Tribunal and the same were duly considered. The Tribunal had considered the actual loss of income for 5 years and had accordingly determined an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards actual loss of income. The medical bills amounting to Rs.4,67,082/- were produced before the Tribunal and the same were duly considered. Additionally, looking at the medical condition of the claimant, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- under the head of medical expenses in order to meet with the future requirements also. Apart from the aforesaid compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. The amount of Rs.81,700/- has also been awarded to the claimant under the head of special food and diet. The amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded under the head of transportation charges and Rs.90,000/- has been awarded under the head of attendant charges. Thus, in all the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.35,01,700/- as compensation. The bifurcation of which reads as under :- Sr. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Future loss of income Rs.19,20,000/- 2. Actual loss of income Rs.6,00,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.6,00,000/- 4. Pain, shock and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- 5. Special diet Rs.81,700/- 6. Transportation charges Rs.10,000/- 7. Attendance charges Rs.90,000/- Total Rs.35,01,700/- 2.8 The Tribunal, therefore, by impugned judgment and award dated 21st March, 2016 partly allowed the claim petition to the tune of Rs.35,01,700/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellant – insurance company. 3. This Court noticing the peculiar facts of the case, with a view to ascertain whether against the impugned judgment and award the original claimants proposes the appeal or not, vide order dated 29th July, 2016 had issued notice in the appeal preferred by the insurance company. The application for stay was also preferred along with the captioned appeal. Vide order dated 24th August, 2016, by way of interim relief, the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad was stayed on a condition that entire awarded amount was directed to be deposited together with costs and interest with the concerned Tribunal within a period of six months thereafter. Vide order dated 24th August, 2016, by way of interim relief, the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad was stayed on a condition that entire awarded amount was directed to be deposited together with costs and interest with the concerned Tribunal within a period of six months thereafter. It was further directed to the Tribunal to invest 80% of the aforesaid amount in any Nationalized bank for the period of 5 years, which was further directed to be renewed from time to time till final disposal of the main matter. The original claimants were entitled to withdraw the periodical interest, which was to accrue on such deposit. The rest of the 20% of the amount with proportionate costs and interest was permitted to be withdrawn by the original claimant, which was directed to be transferred to the bank account of the original claimant. The appeal was thereafter admitted. The Record and Proceedings were sought for and the matter was notified for final hearing. 4. The original claimant, who was still in an unconscious state and in coma, through his wife, had preferred crossobjections seeking enhancement of the claim amount mainly under the head of future loss of income and medical expenses incurred, as well as, future medical expenses. The enhancement was also sought for towards the expenses of attendant charges. Thus, the claimant has prayed for allowing the entire claim petition to the tune of Rs.44,55,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The cross-objections were admitted by order dated 15th September, 2016 and were directed to be heard along with the First Appeal. 5. The first appeal along with the cross-objection is notified for final hearing. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate on record for the insurance company and Ms. Krishna Bhaya, learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya has jointly prayed for final hearing of the matter. 6. Both the learned counsel for the respective parties have placed on record the calculation and had submitted that the parties have mutually agreed to the aforesaid calculation except for the interest to be awarded on the additional compensation, which according to the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company should be considered @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its payment. 7. Ms. 7. Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the original claimant on the other hand had urged to consider the interest @ 9% on the additional compensation. Learned advocates, therefore, have urged before us to pass appropriate orders considering the calculation placed on record. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. We have also perused the findings and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in light of the evidence brought on record. We have perused the impugned judgment and award, as well as, the record and proceedings of the claim petition. 9. At the out-set, we would like to record that in appeal and the cross-objections, the parties are mainly aggrieved by the determination of the compensation amount under the different heads. Thus, in absence of any challenge to the issue of negligence of the opponent no.1 – driver and the consequential liability of the opponent no.2 – owner of the offending vehicle, we restrict ourselves to examine the issue of quantum of compensation only. 10. Having perused the proposed calculation, placed on record as mutually agreed upon by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the same are examined in light of the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi - (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Undisputedly, the age of the claimant as determined by the Tribunal was 35 years on the date of accident i.e. 5th April, 2001. The parties have not disputed the determination of the income of the injured claimants @ Rs.9,881/- per month, which is even otherwise evident from his salary slips produced at Exhs.87 and 88 before the Tribunal. 11. It would be germane to mention that the Tribunal was guided at the relevant point of time by the principle laid down in case of Kavita Vs. Deepak and others reported in 2012 (8) SCC 604 , whereby the Courts were directed to award ‘just’ compensation. Though argument of additional 50% monthly income to the actual was prayed for towards future prospects, the Tribunal had held that such addition was only permissible in fatal cases and had assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/-. Deepak and others reported in 2012 (8) SCC 604 , whereby the Courts were directed to award ‘just’ compensation. Though argument of additional 50% monthly income to the actual was prayed for towards future prospects, the Tribunal had held that such addition was only permissible in fatal cases and had assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/-. Looking at the facts of the case and in view of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi - (2017) 16 SCC 680 , we are inclined to accept the addition of 40% of the actual income of the injured claimant for the purpose of determining future prospects. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Shethi (supra) are reproduced hereunder :- “44. At this stage, we must immediately say that insofar as the aforesaid multiplicand/multiplier is concerned, it has to be accepted on the basis of income established by the legal representatives of the deceased. Future prospects are to be added to the sum on the percentage basis and “income” means actual income less the tax paid. The multiplier has already been fixed in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which has been approved in Kumari Reshma Kumari Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : Reshma v. (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] with which we concur. xx xx xx 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. 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. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.” 12. In light of the aforesaid legal principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the age of the injured claimant, applying the proportionate addition of 40% deserves consideration. Thus, the 40% of the actual income on the date of accident i.e. 40% x Rs.9,881/-, the prospective income comes to Rs.14,821/- per month. Looking at the age of the injured claimant of 35 years and following the multiplier provided in column-4 of the table as reproduced in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transportation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , we hereby apply the multiplier of 16. 13. This brings us to the assessment of the permanent disability incurred by the injured claimant. We had inquired from the learned advocates for the respective parties about the medical condition of the original claimant, to which the learned advocate for the claimant had submitted that as on date he is bedridden and in fact, the further expenses have been incurred towards the medicines as well as towards the attendant charges. The disability certificates are found on record at Exhs.73 & 75. Simultaneously, we have also perused the evidence of the wife of the injured claimant, as well as, the evidence of the father of the injured claimant. The affidavit of orthopedic surgeon Dr. Shantilal G. Patel has also been brought on record at Exh.72. Before giving his opinion as regards the permanent disablement of the claimant, he claims to have examined the injured. The multiple injuries as noticed by him, which is recorded, are reproduced as under :- “a. Inability to make fist left hand. The affidavit of orthopedic surgeon Dr. Shantilal G. Patel has also been brought on record at Exh.72. Before giving his opinion as regards the permanent disablement of the claimant, he claims to have examined the injured. The multiple injuries as noticed by him, which is recorded, are reproduced as under :- “a. Inability to make fist left hand. b. Stiffness of left wrist, elbow and shoulder c. Inability to move left lower limb at hip d. Shortening of right lower limb e. Inability to take full weight on left lower limb f. Inability to squat or sit cross-legged. g. Inability to get up after sitting without support On examining the following findings were noted :- a. Walks with stick in right hand, limp and external rotation of left lower extremity and flexion at left knee. b. Scar ulna aspect left wrist 5 cm long. c. Left wrist in 45 degree volar flexion (fixed) d. Hyperextension MP joints fingers of left hand, can not make fist. e. Two scars posterior aspect left elbow 5 cm and 8 cm long f. No supination pronation on left side g. Left elbow flexion from 45 degree Mexion deformity to 90 degree (0 to 140 degree on right side) h. Flexion-abduction left shoulder 110 degree (180 degree on right side) i. Power left shoulder and elbow grade four (grade five on right side) j. Shortening of right lower extremity by 8 cm. k. Scar anterolateral aspect left foot 10 cm long l. Right hip flexion 80 degree, abduction 30 degree, no extension, no external rotation m. Left hip-flexion 70 degree, no abduction, no extension, no internal rotation n. Right knee flexion 100 degree o. Left knee flexion 90 degree p. Left ankle planterflexion 10 degree (45 degree on right side) q. Power left hip, knee and ankle grade three plus, right hip. knee and ankle grade four.” The said witness was cross-examined by the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company. In the present appeal, the learned advocates for the respective parties in the peculiar facts of the case have agreed to consider it as a case of 100% functional disability. Having noticed the medical certificates and evidence led, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid submission of learned advocates for the respective parties to assess the functional disability as 100% of the body as a whole. 14. Having noticed the medical certificates and evidence led, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid submission of learned advocates for the respective parties to assess the functional disability as 100% of the body as a whole. 14. We are also guided by the legal principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajaykumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 342, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in detail and has succinctly explained the significance of medico legal cases and the approach of the Courts in determining the disability suffered by the victims of the motor road accidents. Even, recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Siddhram Vs. Divisional Manager - (2023) 3 SCC 439 has reaffirmed the aforesaid view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has even extended the compensation under the head of future medical expenses in the case of exceptional injuries sustained by the victim of the motor road accident. 15. Considering the overall facts of the case, the evidence brought on record and the legal principles laid down in the aforesaid landmark decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the loss of future income of the injured claimant is determined as Rs.14,821/- x 100% = Rs.14,821/- x 12 = Rs.1,77,852/- x 16 = Rs.28,45,632/-. 16. Having held so, the compensation for loss of actual income is required to be excluded. Having considered as a case of 100% functional disablement, though the Tribunal has considered an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by considering the actual income as Rs.10,000/- per month and loss of actual income being considered for 5 years i.e. for 60 months as Rs.6,00,000/-, is hereby required to be quashed and set aside. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appeal preferred by the appellant – insurance company succeeds to the aforesaid extent only. 17. This brings us to the aspect of enhancement of the award amount on the rest of the heads. In view of the mutual agreement arrived at between the appellant – insurance company and the claimant, the amount of compensation for pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life is redetermined from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The amount of compensation towards medical expenses and treatment is determined as Rs.4,57,082/-. Learned advocates for both the parties further mutually agreed to the aforesaid figure in view of the undisputed fact that the medical bills, which are produced on record are worth Rs.4,57,082/-. The amount of compensation towards medical expenses and treatment is determined as Rs.4,57,082/-. Learned advocates for both the parties further mutually agreed to the aforesaid figure in view of the undisputed fact that the medical bills, which are produced on record are worth Rs.4,57,082/-. 18. As against that, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company has fairly pointed-out that taking into consideration the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [ (1995) 1 SCC 551 and recently in case of Siddhram (supra), the additional amount of compensation towards future medical expenses as agreed, deserves consideration. Hence, the claimant is held entitled to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 19. So far as compensation awarded under the head of attendant charges, special diet and transportation is concerned, the learned advocates have mutually agreed to redetermine the aforesaid amount from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.81,700/- to Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- respectively. At the same time, learned advocates for the respective parties have also agreed to redetermine the amount of compensation awarded under the head of enjoyment of life, loss to amenities, which is otherwise not granted by the Tribunal. The learned advocates have mutually agreed for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the aforesaid heads independently. Looking at the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the injured claimant though having survived the accident, being retained all throughout these years and may be in the remaining years of his life remain in bedridden condition. The aforesaid amounts deserve consideration. Hence, we hereby grant additional compensation under the head of loss of enjoyment of life at Rs.2,00,000/- and towards loss of amenities at Rs.2,00,000/- respectively. 20. This brings us to the last but the relevant part of the compensation i.e. the interest to be awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation. The Tribunal, noticing the fact that the accident relates to the year 2001, had awarded interest @ 9% per annum. 20. This brings us to the last but the relevant part of the compensation i.e. the interest to be awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation. The Tribunal, noticing the fact that the accident relates to the year 2001, had awarded interest @ 9% per annum. Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that in order to balance the award amount, the insurance company has taken a fair approach in re-determination of the compensation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and has therefore, urged to consider the interest @ 7.5% on the additional enhanced amount of compensation as against 9% awarded by the Tribunal. 21. In Abati Bezbaruah vs. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and Another 2003 (3) SCC 148 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined as follows; “18. ………………….. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Section 34 CPC nor Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. ……………………….” (emphasis supplied) 22. Neither Section 34 CPC nor Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. ……………………….” (emphasis supplied) 22. Considering the totality of the facts of the case including the fact that the Claimant suffered physical impairment of 100%, We are of the considered opinion that the rate of interest determined at 9% on the Award, by the Learned Claims Tribunal requires no interference. 23. At the same time, we are conscious of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharampal vs. State of U.P. reported in 2008 (12) SCC 208 , wherein the Courts are directed to consider the bank rate of interest prevailing at the relevant point of time. In India, the lending rate system is generally governed by the RBI guidelines issued in the form of circular from time to time. We have been apprised that generally in the case of enhanced amount of compensation, interest at the rate of 7.5% is awarded at the appeal stage by the High Courts, as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. Considering the overall amount of enhancement, we are inclined to accept the submission of learned advocate for the appellant and accordingly fix the rate of interest of 7.5% per annum to be awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 25. For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation under different heads is redetermined and is reproduced in a tabular form hereunder : Sr. No. Heads of compensation Amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced amount of compensation 1. For loss of future income/earning capacity Rs.19,20,000/- Rs.28,45,632/- 2. Loss of past income Rs.10,000 x 60 months = Rs.6,00,000 --- 3. Pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- 4. Medical expenses & treatment Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.4,57,082/- 5. Future medical treatment and expenses --- Rs.5,00,000/- 6. Attendant charges, special diet & Transportation Rs.90,000/- Rs.81,700/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.50,000/- 7. Loss of enjoyment of life loss of amenities --- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 8. Total compensation :- Rs.35,01,700/- Rs.51,52,714/- 9. Interest 9% 7.5% 26. Medical expenses & treatment Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.4,57,082/- 5. Future medical treatment and expenses --- Rs.5,00,000/- 6. Attendant charges, special diet & Transportation Rs.90,000/- Rs.81,700/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.50,000/- 7. Loss of enjoyment of life loss of amenities --- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 8. Total compensation :- Rs.35,01,700/- Rs.51,52,714/- 9. Interest 9% 7.5% 26. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant - insurance company is partly allowed only on the limited aspect of compensation for loss of actual income and the compensation for medical expenses and treatment and the rate of interest. The cross-objections preferred by the original claimant is also allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 21st March, 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad City in MACP no.663 of 2001 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. The original claimant is held entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.16,51,014/- with interest of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization. The appellant - insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation along with proportionate costs and interest with the concerned Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order. On depositing such enhanced amount of compensation, the Tribunal is directed to release the total compensation awarded in favour of the original claimants subject to due verification and in terms of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. 27. The appeal and the cross-objections stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. R. & P. be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.