JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge is given to the judgment dated 06.07.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Mahesana at Visnagar in M.A.C.P. No.60 of 2013. The compensation amount has been granted as Rs.27,680/- at 9% per annum. The injured claimant has taken exception to it raising the ground that the compensation amount has not been appropriately granted. 2. Mr. A.V.Prajapati, learned advocate for the claimant submitted that the income was required to be assessed in accordance to the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, where the claimant has stated that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 2.1 Advocate Mr. Prajapati submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence, and when the applicant had produced his driving license, the Tribunal should have considered his income as per minimum wages schedule to assess the income, and further stated that some amount under the head of medical expense was also required to be granted, though bills could not be proved, but the factum of treatment and injury was stated before the Tribunal. Advocate Mr. Prajapati stated that the amount under the head of pain, shock and sufferings and special diet, attendance charges and transportation are also on the lower side. 3. Learned advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar submitted that the claimant was required to produce the evidence on record to prove his income, and further the medical bills were required to be proved to claim for the same. 4. In accordance to the facts noted in the judgment, on 17.03.2013, the applicant was passing on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-2-BG-2204, and when he reached at the place of accident, he faced an accident, since, opponent no.1 came in his car in full speed, endangering the human life, in rash and negligent manner, breach of traffic rules, dashed the motorcycle of the applicant; as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. As per the claimant, he was 57 years of age and was earning Rs.10,000/- by transport business. 5. The certified copy of the complaint, panchnama, driving license of the car driver, R.C. Book of the car, insurance policy of the car as well as medical discharge card of the claimant were produced on record. The claimant had also produced pan card, income tax returns of the assessment year of 2006-2007 and 2008-2009, tax payer counter foil at Exh.21 and 25 respectively and the disability certificate at Exh.28. The claimant had also produced pan card, income tax returns of the assessment year of 2006-2007 and 2008-2009, tax payer counter foil at Exh.21 and 25 respectively and the disability certificate at Exh.28. 5.1 The income could not be proved of the year of accident; however, considering the fact that his evidence of doing transport business gets support from the income tax returns of the earlier year. The fact could be believed that he was having his earning from transport business; however, exact income could not be proved on record, but the assessment of Rs.3,000/- by the Tribunal would not be in correspondence to the evidence on record; however, since the income at the time of accident could not be proved by cogent evidence, the assistance can be taken about the standard of the wages being payable to skilled person, and, accordingly Rs.5,100/- per month could be considered as the income of the claimant. 5.2 As per National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 10% prospective rise in income is granted, since self employed person above the age of 50. Hence, the amount would come to Rs.5,610/- [5,100 + 510 (10%)]. Annually, the amount would come to Rs.67,320/- (5,610 x 12). 5.3 The disability, by consent, as 7% for body as a whole has been considered, by an endorsement at Exh.27 before the Tribunal, hence, accordingly applying the multiplier of 9, the claimant would be entitled as Rs.42,408/- [67,320 x 7% (Rs.4712) x 9] under the head of future loss of income. 5.4 Considering the injury and evidence on record of the treatment, the claimant would not have earned for about one month, hence, the actual loss of income is considered as Rs.5,100/-. 5.5 Under the head of pain, shock and suffering, the amount of Rs.2,500/- granted by the Tribunal is on a lower side, as the claimant could produce the disability certificate, where the Doctor had assessed 15% disability, hence, the amount is enhanced as Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 5.6 Though, medical bills could not be proved, but taking into consideration the injuries sustained and the factum of treatment, under the head of medical expense, Rs.7,500/- is granted. 5.6 Though, medical bills could not be proved, but taking into consideration the injuries sustained and the factum of treatment, under the head of medical expense, Rs.7,500/- is granted. 5.7 In correspondence to the treatment and the need of special diet to recover, the amount is enhanced from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.5,000/- under the head of special diet, transportation and attendant charges. 6. In view of the above, compensation under different heads would be: Heads Tribunal has granted Amount Future loss of income Rs. 22,680/- Rs. 42,408/- Actual loss of income --- Rs. 5,100/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 2,500/- Rs. 10,000 Medical expenses ---- Rs. 7,500/- Special diet, transportation and attendant charges Rs. 2,500/- Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 27,680/- Rs. 70,008/- 7. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation as Rs.27,680/-. The claimant would be entitled to get Rs.42,328/- (70,008 – 27,680) as enhanced compensation at the interest rate of 7.5%. 7.1 The enhanced amount be deposited before the concerned Tribunal within Eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The total amount be paid to the claimant by way of cheque or NEFT on verification of identity. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated dated 06.07.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Mahesana at Visnagar in M.A.C.P. No.60 of 2013, stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Record and Proceeding be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, if received.