JUDGMENT : 1. The original claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 9.11.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod in MACP No.708 of 2007. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi for the appellant submitted that the multiplier adopted is not in accordance with the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and there appears to be some inadvertent error where actually, the multiplier would be 13 as the Tribunal has considered the age of 50 years of the injured and further stated that though it has considered 10% as a whole body, 28% permanent medical disability has been assessed and thus, said that the amount under the heads of pain, shock and suffering is required to be re-appreciated. 3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar for respondent submitted that the Tribunal has relied on the medical certificate of injured to consider his age of 50 years while requirement was to adopt the age which has been stated on affidavit by the claimant himself which is 52 years of age in his affidavit filed in the year 2010. Learned advocate further submitted that as per the judgment of Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the assessment for pain, shock and suffering would also be considered as on functional disability and stated that the amount granted is just and proper. 4. The claimant sustained vehicular injury on 22.7.2007 while he was going on his foot to bazaar from his house walking on the side of road. At 18.00 hours, when he was passing the road, opposite Vrindavan Hotel, Dahod, at that time, one motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-20-D-6579 came, driven by its driver, opponent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and hit him, as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries including fracture on right leg. 5. The claimant, while giving his evidence before the Tribunal, from his side, examined Dr. Kutub Gunderwala (M.S. Ortho) as witness at Exh. 32, and, the injury certificate of Anjali Memorial Hospital Vadodara at Exh. 24, medical bills at Exh.28, prescriptions for medicals and tablets at Exh. 31 and disability certificate at Exh. 33 were on record to support the case. The claimant, while giving his evidence before the Tribunal, from his side, examined Dr. Kutub Gunderwala (M.S. Ortho) as witness at Exh. 32, and, the injury certificate of Anjali Memorial Hospital Vadodara at Exh. 24, medical bills at Exh.28, prescriptions for medicals and tablets at Exh. 31 and disability certificate at Exh. 33 were on record to support the case. The learned Tribunal has observed about the injuries including fracture over right knee of leg, and operation was carried out on right leg and inserted plate therein; for that, he was kept as indoor from 23.7.2007 to 28.7.2007. During the treatment, he was attended by the attendants and he suffered severe pain, shock and agony. The injury certificate was issued by Anjali Memorial Hospital, Vadodara, which certified that the injured had to undergo major surgery and on discharge, he was advised to take complete rest for three months. Dr. Kutub Gunderwala had examined the claimant for the assessment of disability and he issued certificate at Exh. 33 where he had considered 10% disability for non-healing of fracture injury 10% for disfigurement, 6% disability for early osteoarthritides steed and 6% for restricted movements of right leg over knee part. Doctor’s evidence was that the applicant has difficulty in walking, sitting crossed legs and even, he has trouble in doing routine activities of life. Doctor stated that the applicant has 28% permanent disability for loss of function of right lower extremity. 6. Thus, considering these aspects and the age of the applicant, this Court considers that the amount under the head of pain, shock and sufferings is required to be assessed in commensurating the evidence on record. The amount of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side, this Court is of the view that Rs.20,000/- though may not abbreviate suffering but would be just and reasonable amount. 7. The multiplier adopted to consider the loss of income is relevant and when the age of the claimant is shown as 50 years in the medical certificate, as well as in the claim petition, which was filed in the year 2007, the age of the claimant considered as 50 years by the Tribunal is in accordance with the evidence on record. While relying on the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), the claimant would fall within the age group of 46-50. Hence, multiplier would be 13. While relying on the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), the claimant would fall within the age group of 46-50. Hence, multiplier would be 13. The Tribunal has considered 10% functional disability for the body as a whole which is just and proper. Relying on the income tax returns, documents of Sales Tax Department and the business of the claimant injured of a wholesaler, inter-state seller, works contract and as per income tax return, the total income of applicant for assessment year 2006-07 was Rs.2,10,813/- and for that, he paid total income tax of Rs.19,476/-. The yearly economic loss would be Rs.19,133.70, applying multiplier of 13 future earning loss comes to Rs.2,48,738.10 which is rounded up as Rs.2,48,738. The Tribunal has granted Rs.2,10,471/-. Hence, enhanced amount under future loss of income comes to Rs.38,267 plus additional amount of Rs.10,000 as increase under pain, shock and suffering. The claimant would have an additional amount of Rs.48,267/-. 8. The appellant would be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.48,267/- at the rate of 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.48,267/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 9. From the compensation amount, 70% of the amount be given to the claimant 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. 10. 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.