JUDGMENT : 1. The claimant injured of M.A.C.P. No.1763 of 2005 has challenged the judgment dated 14.06.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara, praying for enhancement in the compensation amount. 2. Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate for the claimant submitted that the claimant had urged before the Tribunal that he was earning from agriculture work and, thus, Mr. Hakim stated that in absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal should have taken the assistance of minimum wages schedule for assessing the income, which comes to Rs.2,500/- per month. Mr. Hakim submitted that 40% prospective rise in income was also required to be assessed. 2.1 Advocate Mr. Hakim further stated that the claimant had suffered physical disability because of the accident, and had disfigurement of face, and there was difficulty in the movement of the face muscles, which reduced the efficiency of the claimant to even eat his food. 2.2 Advocate Mr. Hakim submitted that the permanent disability, which has been noted by the Doctor is 22.5% on the basis of disfigurement of face. The face was fitted by placing a plate in the jaw, and the claimant had also to bear the expenses for removing the plate from jaw, and, thus Mr. Hakim stated that though permanent disability of 10% has been consented by advocates on record, Mr. Hakim stated that the claimant was required to take the assistance of attendant during the course of treatment for his day-to-day activities. 3. Advocate Mr. Hardik P.Mehta for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has considered 10% permanent disability, which is apt, and accordingly the amount has been granted under all the heads, which is just and proper, thus, requires no indulgence of this Court. 4. The facts narrated by the Tribunal in the judgment are that, on 23.05.2005, at about 4.30, applicant was going from Vadodara to Anand with his wife and minor son on motorcycle. He was on the correct side of the road. When he reached the place of accident, opponent no.1, driver of tempo bearing Registration No.MH-04-CA-5544 came from the opposite direction, in rash and negligent manner with full speed, dashed the motorcycle. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries. 4.1 The applicant sustained injury at head, jaws fractured, teeth were broken, nasal bone fractured, and other injuries on various part of the body. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries. 4.1 The applicant sustained injury at head, jaws fractured, teeth were broken, nasal bone fractured, and other injuries on various part of the body. The applicant was admitted at Krishna Hospital, at Karamsad, where he was operated and plate was inserted. 5. In absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal on the basis of notional income has assessed lumpsum Rs.30,000/- per year, which this Court considers as not appropriate assessment, as it has been randomly made. Though, the claimant could not prove his income by way of any books of account or any purchase or sale bills, but documents were produced to show that he was doing agriculture work. The claimant had deposed that his primary work is farming, the Tribunal should have taken the contribution of the claimant as a farm labourer, and, therefore accordingly Rs.2,500/- per month is required to be assessed with 40% rise in income, considering his age as 31 years. Hence, considering the income of Rs.2,500 with 40% rise, the amount would come to Rs.3,500/- [2,500 + 1,000 (40%)]. Hence, the annual income would come to Rs.42,000/- (3,500 x 12). 5.1 The disability has been consented as 10% by purshis at Exh.55. Hence, considering 10% functional disability, to the annual income of Rs.42,000/-, the amount would come to Rs.4,200/- and applying multiplier of 16, the future loss of income would come to Rs.67,200/- (4,200 x 16). 5.2 The actual loss of income as Rs.7,500/-, the medical expenses as Rs.40,000/- and Rs.7,500/- under special diet, transportation and attendant charges are just and reasonable granted by the Tribunal. 5.3 However, considering the injuries suffered and the fact of injury on the face and jaw with disfigurement, and also the evidence on record that plate was inserted in the jaw of the claimant, the amount granted under the head of pain, shock and sufferings is on a lower side. Considering the fact of sufferance, pain undergone, and also future pain of the injury on the face, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is enhanced from Rs.12,500/- to Rs.25,000/-. Considering the fact of sufferance, pain undergone, and also future pain of the injury on the face, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is enhanced from Rs.12,500/- to Rs.25,000/-. 5.4 It also requires to be noted that injury had led to disfigurement of the face, the Doctor had considered 22.5% permanent disability in context with the disfigurement of the face, the claimant would, therefore, have to suffer because of the injury on the face, which would be very apparent and would affect the self confidence and his status in the society, and his dealing with other parties, with such injury, which could be seen by all, who would come in contact with him, hence, Rs.25,000/- is granted under the head of loss of amenities of life. 5.5 In view of the above, compensation under different heads would be: Heads Amount as per Award (in Rs.) Amount (in Rs.) Future loss of income 45,000/- 67,200/- Actual loss of income 7,500/- 7,500/- Medical expenses 40,000/- 40,000/- Special diet, transportation & Attendant charges 7,500/- 7,500/- Pain, shock and suffering 12,500/- 25,000/- Loss of amenities of life ----- 25,000/- Total 1,12,500/- 1,72,200/- 6. On perusal of the judgment, it appears that the Tribunal has deducted Rs.10,000/- on the compensation amount and granted Rs.1,02,000/- (1,12,000 – 10,000), observing that the vehicle of the claimant was not insured and without any insurance policy, the vehicle was running on the public road. This observation of the Tribunal would not have any bearing, where the opponent’s vehicle has been considered as 100% negligent. The Tribunal has concluded below issue No.1 of the negligence of the tempo driver. The deduction of Rs.10,000/- is not supported by any reasons or any evidence on record, since the Tribunal has not considered any negligence of the claimant in the accident. 7. In view of the above now, the claimant would be entitled to get Rs.59,700/- (1,72,200 – 1,12,500) as enhanced compensation at the rate of 7.5%. 8. The enhanced amount be deposited before the concerned Tribunal within Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order at the interest rate of 7.5%. The total amount be paid to the claimant by Account Payee Cheque/NEFT/RTGS on verification of identity. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 8. The enhanced amount be deposited before the concerned Tribunal within Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order at the interest rate of 7.5%. The total amount be paid to the claimant by Account Payee Cheque/NEFT/RTGS on verification of identity. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 14.06.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1763 of 2005 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal, if received.