JUDGMENT : 1. Since all the learned Advocates for the respondents are on record, considering the ground raised before this Court and with the consent of learned Advocates on record, this Court is inclined to decide this First Appeal at the admission stage. Hence, ADMIT. 2. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.799 of 2016 making a prayer for enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put succinctly as under :- The accident occurred on 01.05.2016 at about 10.30 am near Village Dariyapur on Rajpipla Road for which a First Information Report came to be registered as I-C.R. No.13 of 2016 with Shinor Police Station. The Maruti Car bearing Registration No.GJ-7-AR-4533 was being driven by the claimant of M.A.C.P. No.786 of 2016 – Jalpeshkumar Bhanuprasad Shah. The other claimants who became the victim were the occupiers in the Maruti Car. The driver of the Maruti Car was driving his car on the correct side of the road and in a moderate speed and when they were passing through the place of incident, the driver of the Truck bearing Registration No.AP-16-TE-2468 drove the Truck in a rash and negligent manner, in excessive speed, endangering human life and dashed with the above Maruti Car. The driver of the Maruti Car and his wife sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to death. The other occupants sustained various injuries. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants-claimant Ms. Shreya M. Soni submitted that the income has not been considered in its right perspective and no rise in prospective income has been granted to the claimant and hence, that has affected the compensation amount. It is further submitted that the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is not proper and does not correspond to the actual suffering that the claimant had undergone. Hence, it is submitted that appropriate compensation be granted to the claimants under all the heads. 5. Countering the above arguments, learned Advocates appearing for both the respondent Insurance Companies, Mr. Maulik J. Shelat and Mr. Rathin P. Raval submitted that the claimant had failed to give any evidence with regard to her earning and no cogent evidence was produced to substantiate the fact of her work. 5. Countering the above arguments, learned Advocates appearing for both the respondent Insurance Companies, Mr. Maulik J. Shelat and Mr. Rathin P. Raval submitted that the claimant had failed to give any evidence with regard to her earning and no cogent evidence was produced to substantiate the fact of her work. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has granted appropriate amount under all the heads including the medical expenses. Thus, it is submitted that no indulgence would be necessary of this Court as the total compensation granted is just and proper. 6. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, perused the records of the case, it comes on record that the present appellant-claimant has filed her examination-in-chief in the form of Affidavit at Exhibit 33. As per her deposition, she has stated that she was doing sewing work and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has considered the appellant’s income as Rs.4,000/- per month. Taking into account the date of accident and the fact that the claimant was earning through sewing work though no documentary evidence was produced, initially notice could be taken of the fact that in such kind of work, no accounting would be done and it would not provide an earning job, hence, there were no specific documents. Considering the oral evidence of the claimant, her income is considered as Rs.5,000/- per month. 7. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged 53 years, and hence the multiplier applicable would be 11. The learned Tribunal has considered 42% disability of the body as a whole and as was assessed by the Doctor. The learned Tribunal has believed the medical expert and this Court, also does not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. Yogeshbhai Thakorlal Parikh, who had corroborated the injuries sustained by the claimant and had given his opinion with regard to the disability of the claimant. Hence, accordingly 42% disability can be considered of the appellant. Therefore, the future loss would come to Rs.5,000/- per month + 10% prospective rise in income, i.e. Rs.5,500/- per month. 8. Considering 42% disability and annually applying the multiplier of 11, the future loss of income would come to Rs.3,04,920/- (Rs.5,500/- per month x 40% x 12 x 11). 9. The claimant has stated that she was doing sewing work and according to Dr. 8. Considering 42% disability and annually applying the multiplier of 11, the future loss of income would come to Rs.3,04,920/- (Rs.5,500/- per month x 40% x 12 x 11). 9. The claimant has stated that she was doing sewing work and according to Dr. Yogeshbhai Thakorlal Parikh, the claimant had fracture of she had fracture of right leg, in tibia region and produced the Disability Certificate at Exhibit 75. In the cross examination, it is stated that the claimant had suffered fracture on tibia fibula and though the appellant had recovered, she would have difficulty in climbing the stairs and even while standing and would have difficulty in sitting cross legged. 10. The claimant is a housewife and also a working woman, she had been hospitalized for about 12 days, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is not in the ratio with the hospitalization and sufferings endured. Hence, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is increased from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. 11. The medical expenses of Rs.15,000/- has been proved and has been granted by the learned Tribunal. 12. Under the head of Special Diet and Transportation, in view of the fact that the claimant was hospitalized for 12 days, the learned Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.15,000/-. 13. The learned Tribunal has assessed the actual loss of income for 3 months @ Rs.12,000/-. 14. The income has been assessed @ Rs.5,000/- per month, hence, the claimant would have an additional amount of Rs.3,000/-. 15. Thus, the computation can be made as under :- Sl. No. Details Amount (Rs.) 1 Future loss of income 3,04,920/- 2 Pain, shock and suffering 25,000/- 3 Special Diet, Attendant’s charges and Transportation 15,000/- 4 Actual loss of income 15,000/- 5 Medical Expenses 15,600/- TOTAL 3,75,520/- 16. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,79,360/- with rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum, which the respondent/s are liable to deposit, with the enhanced amount as Rs.99,160/- (Rs.3,75,520/- minus Rs.2,79,360/-). In the result, the present respondent/s are directed to deposit the amount within a period of EIGHT (8) WEEKS from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. In the result, the present respondent/s are directed to deposit the 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 and the disbursement of the amount be made as per the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. 17. The learned Tribunal has assessed the negligence of the Truck Driver @ 70% and that of the Driver of the Maruti Car @ 30%. Hence, the compensation amount be deposited by the Insurance Companies in the proportion as decided by the learned Tribunal. 18. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.799 of 2016 stands modified to the above extent. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.