JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The challenge is to the judgment dated 1.9.2018 passed by the MACT, Junagadh in MACP No. 400/05. 2. Facts of the case suggest that on 15.3.2005, the injured at about 2.30 p.m. was proceeding from Rajkot to Ahmedabad in accent car bearing registration no. GJ-5 CF-7987 which was driven by opponent no. 3. When they reached Kuvadva Road near J.K. Hotel, a utility car bearing registration no. GJ-13 U-8507 driven by opponent no. 1 came in a rash and negligent manner and on turning, the accident occurred. The learned Tribunal has considered equal negligence of both the vehicles and had ordered to recover the amount from opponents no. 1 to 5. 3. Mr. Modi submitted that the learned Tribunal was required to consider the physical disability in the form of permanent nature to grant appropriate amount under the head of loss of amenities of life when no amount has been granted for future loss of income. Mr. Modi further submitted that medical expenses as could be proved is to the amount of Rs. 1,85,000/-. Mr. Modi submitted that at the time of the accident, the claimant was 45 and was serving as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department at Porbandar and the accident had occurred on 15.3.2005 and the salary slip of June, 2005 produced at Exh.39 shows his monthly income of Rs. 16,000/-. Advocate Mr. Modi submitted that there was compounding fracture in his leg which has led to permanent disability and because of the inability, he took voluntary retirement which came into effect on 30.6.2005. Advocate Mr. Modi submitted that because of VRS, the loss of income was required to be considered which the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. Advocate Mr. Modi further submitted that in view of I.T. returns of his continuation of the working in other field was considered, then the learned Tribunal was required to grant the amount under the head of loss of amenities of life to appropriately compensate him for the permanent loss which he has suffered and further submitted that he had undergone the treatment and the medical bills would reflect the suffering and the pain which he would have sustained during the term of his treatment where actually, the Doctor has certified 48% permanent disability and the learned Tribunal has considered the same as 24% functional disability. 4. 4. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta submitted that the claimant was not forced to retire from his job while he had voluntarily taken the decision to retire and the evidence on record by way of I.T. returns shows that his income has increased continuously and rather he has been earning more than what he was receiving as a salaried person. The learned Tribunal has considered the income tax returns produced at Exhs.59 to 68 which shows his income from private work of Rs. 23,22,439/-. 5. The learned Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of any future loss of income but has randomly awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the head of loss to the physical loss caused to the claimant. In Dahyabhai Somchand Parmar vs. Ramavtar B. Sharma, 2006 (4) GLR 2844 , wherein the calculation of the trial Court adopting the multiplier of 5 applied in case of injury sustained by government or semi-government employee whose employment has continued in the same cadre for compensation and whose earning has increased was approved. 6. It is also required to be mentioned that such method of applying the multiplier system in case of assessing the loss of amenities of life, has been approved by the Apex Court, which has the reflection in Paras 11 and 13 of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , which refers as under: “11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation [See for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar vs. D.M. National Insurance Co. Ltd.] 13. Ltd. 2010 (10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar vs. D.M. National Insurance Co. Ltd.] 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.” 7. Considering the proposition of law as laid down in the referred judgment, the claimant – injured would be entitled for the amount for the loss of amenities of life and when no particular standard has been laid down applying multiplier system, it would be just and reasonable to grant the compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life by applying multiplier of 5. Last salary as has come on record by way of Exh.39 shows that he was drawing the salary of Rs. 16,000/-. 24% physical disability applying multiplier of 5, annual loss can be considered and the amount would come to Rs. 2,30,400/- (Rs. 16,000/- x 24% x 5 x 12). The learned Tribunal has granted the amount under the head of transportation, attendant charges and special diet is of Rs. 15,000/- and an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- has been granted towards medical expenses. 8. It is to be noted that the injured took VRS on 30.6.2005. The accident which has taken place is stated to be on 15.3.2005. The injured was a salaried person. Actual loss of income has not been proved by way of examining any authorized person nor has he deposed of any loss of salary during the term of his employment. Hence, the amount of Rs. The accident which has taken place is stated to be on 15.3.2005. The injured was a salaried person. Actual loss of income has not been proved by way of examining any authorized person nor has he deposed of any loss of salary during the term of his employment. Hence, the amount of Rs. 48,000/- as granted by the Tribunal is not in consistence with the evidence on record. The claimant would not be entitled for the said amount. 9. The learned Tribunal has granted only Rs. 15,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. This Court considers that as per the Doctor, the physical disability of the claimant was 48%. He had suffered compounding fracture in the leg. Medical expenses as could be proved shows that he would have taken treatment for a longer period and would have suffered pain, shock and suffering. Hence, the amount is required to be enhanced which this Court considers to pay Rs. 25,000/- under the said head. In the result, the computation is as under: Loss of amenities of life Rs. 2,30,400/- Medical bills Rs. 1,85,000/- Special diet, attendant and transportation Rs. 15,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 25,000/- Total compensation Rs. 4,55,400/- 10. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 3,13,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, the claimant would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,42,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The enhanced amount is directed to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 11. From the said amount, 70% of the amount be given to the claimant on verification of the identity and rest of 30% be invested in a fixed deposit with any nationalized bank for a period of two years. Interest accruing on such Fixed Deposit shall be accumulated. After two years, total amount be given to the claimant without any reference to the court. 12. The impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal, if received.