JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellants-claimants (the legal heirs of the original claimant who had filed the M.A.C.P.) have challenged the judgment and award dated 30.12.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1454 of 2007 for the injuries the original claimant had sustained in the vehicular accident. The judgment and award of the learned Tribunal was delivered on 30.12.2017. During the pendency of the Appeal, the original claimant expired as per the instructions received by learned Advocate for the appellants Mr. Karna H. Dhomse and thus, by an order of this Court, the heirs of the deceased were brought on record, who are the widow and two minor children. 2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put succinctly as under :- On 24.03.2007, the original claimant was heading from Vadodara towards Ahmedabad on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-6-CE-6600 alongwith a pillion rider. When the deceased reached on National Highway No.8, Near Hotel Saibaba, Taluka Kheda, the respondent No.1 came driving his truck bearing Registration No.GJ-7-X-5316, in an attempt to overtake the foregoing truck, came on the wrong side of the road and dashed the appellant’s motorcycle. The original claimant suffered various body injures as also multiple fracture, therefore, he was rushed to Kheda General Hospital for first aid treatment and was subsequently shifted to D.K. Patel’s Hospital, Vadodara. During the hospitalization period from 24.03.2007 to 24.04.2007, as an indoor patient, the original claimant was operated upon, blood transfusion was given in addition to dripping of glucose bottles. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant-claimants Mr. Karna H. Dhomse submitted that at the time of the accident, the original claimant was running “Maa Gayatri” Computer Classes and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the claimant/s could not produce any documentary evidence and only after 2007, he was able to file his income tax returns. However, the income tax returns for the financial years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 were produced on record. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent – Insurance Company Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar has submitted that in absence of documentary evidence, the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. 5. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, perused the records of the case. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent – Insurance Company Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar has submitted that in absence of documentary evidence, the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. 5. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, perused the records of the case. It appears that the learned Tribunal has considered Rs.1,11,091/- as income of the deceased and has assessed the monthly income of Rs.9,260/- per month. Since the amount assessed is as per the statutory document, the said assessment by the learned Tribunal requires no further re-appreciation. 6. The disability of 43% has been stated for the body as a whole qua the claimant and the multiplier of 17 has been granted. In the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Husain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2022 Livelaw SC 1017, it has been noted that the prospective rise in income is required to be assessed even in case of an injured person. Hence, considering the prospective rise in income @ 40%, the amount would come to Rs.3,704/- per month (Rs.9,260 x 40%). Hence, the per month income would come to Rs.12,964/- (Rs.9,260/- + Rs.3,704). 7. 43% disability has been assessed and applying the multiplier of 17, the future dependency loss would come to Rs.11,37,300/- (Rs.12,964/- x 43% x 12 months x 17 multiplier). 8. The deceased had sustained physical disability and he had examined Dr. Himanshu Dahyabhai Patel at Exhibit 39. The Doctor had admitted to all the details of the injuries as noted in the Injury Certificate and accordingly, on clinical examination, had considered 85% of of the deceased’s physical disability. The deceased appellant had sustained injury on the lower limb of the right leg and cannot ascend the staircase, further the deceased appellant could not even sit cross legged. 9. In view of the evidence on record, the amount granted under the head of pain, shock and suffering is required to be enhanced since the same is on the lower side and from this amount of Rs.15,000/-, the Court considers it just and proper to grant Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 10. 9. In view of the evidence on record, the amount granted under the head of pain, shock and suffering is required to be enhanced since the same is on the lower side and from this amount of Rs.15,000/-, the Court considers it just and proper to grant Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 10. Medical expenses have been proved; considering the length of hospitalization and the family members would have spent money towards the travelling cost, the amount towards Special Diet, transportation and attendant charges is increased from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.10,000/-. 11. Actual loss of income of Rs.10,000/- has been granted by the learned Tribunal, which in the opinion of this Court is not required to be interfered. 12. Thus, the computation can be made as under :- Details Amount (Rs.) Future loss of income 11,37,300/- Pain, shock and suffering 40,000/- Transportation 10,000/- Medical Expenses 1,04,900/- Actual loss of income 10,000/- TOTAL 13,02,300/- 13. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,01,944/- with rate of interest @ 9% per annum, which the respondent/s are liable to deposit, with the enhanced amount as Rs.4,00,256/- (Rs.13,02,300/- minus Rs.9,01,944/-). In the result, the present respondent/s are directed to deposit the enhanced/amount within a period of EIGHT (8) WEEKS from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. It is further directed that the claimants would be entitled to receive the enhanced compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application. 14. The appellants-claimants are the widow and two minors. After deposit of the above/enhanced amount, it is directed that the appellant-widow be paid 70% of the said amount by Account Payee Cheque/NEFT/RTGS. Rest 30% of the amount be paid in equal proportion to the minors. The amount which comes qua the share of the widow be paid totally while the share of the minors be placed in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) till they attain the age of majority. The interest thereon be accumulated. It is directed that the disbursement be made after carrying the necessary procedures for verification of the identity of the claimants. 15. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated 30.12.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1454 of 2007 stands modified to the above extent. It is directed that the disbursement be made after carrying the necessary procedures for verification of the identity of the claimants. 15. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated 30.12.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1454 of 2007 stands modified to the above extent. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.