JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. Notice was issued to the respondent/s by an order of this Court dated 12.12.2022. 2. Since the learned Advocates for the respondent-Insurance Company 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. 3. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-injured claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No. 636 of 2017. 4. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put succinctly as under: On 27.09.2016, the claimant aged 19 years was returning to his home on his motor cycle, was driving in moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. When the claimant reached at the place of accident, i.e. near Rutu Farm, Village Bhumol, at around 7.45 pm, the respondent No. 1 the driver of the Maruti Car bearing Registration No. GJ-23-A-8592 came in a rash and negligent manner, in excessive speed, endangering human life and dashed the motor cycle of the claimant as a result, the claimant was flung on the road, the claimant suffered serious injuries on his head and both his hands and legs. He suffered fracture injuries and according to the Medical Certificate, the claimant was first kept as an indoor patient at Zydus Hospital, Anand, was in ICU for 45 days and at the time of passing of the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, he was taking treatment as an outdoor patient. 5. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, who submitted that the claimant is a labourer and the learned Tribunal has considered his income as Rs. 5,000/- per month as was urged by him. However, the prospective rise in income has not been granted considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Husain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 Live Law SC 1017, wherein it has been noted that the prospective rise in income is required to be assessed even in case of an injured person and there should not be any differentiation in case of injured and of the deceased and the prospective rise in income is required to be assessed at par. Hence, it is stated that since the age of the injured was 19 years, 40% prospective rise in income is to be considered. It is further submitted that the medical bills of Rs. 5,34,200/- has been approved by the learned Tribunal and the amount has been granted. However, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is on the lower side. In the same manner, the amount under the head of Special Diet, Attendant Charges and Transportation is also not properly granted taking into consideration the fact of the claimant being in ICU for 45 days as an indoor patient. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has assumed 35% physical disability but has not assessed the functional disability of the claimant who belongs to the labour class and because of his physical disability would not have been in a position to continue with his work as he was doing earlier. It is further submitted that the loss of amenities of life and marriage prospects is also required to be considered and hence, has submitted for indulgence of this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company Mr. Dakshesh Mehta submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed 35% physical disability which has been considered as functional disability and his income has been assessed as Rs. 5,000/- per month and accordingly, the compensation amount has been granted. The medical bills have been proved and granted by the learned Tribunal. In addition, under other heads too, the amount has been appropriately assessed and thus submitted that no indulgence of this Court would be necessary. 7. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and on perusing the records of the case, it appears that the claimant had examined Dr. Vijay R. Sheth at Exhibit 39 and as per his deposition, he had examined witness to assess the permanent disability. The injured had taken treatment from Zydus Hospital, Anand as he had sustained injuries on his head and on his hands and legs. In addition, he had also undergone brain operation and was in ICU for 45 days. Both his hands and legs were paralyzed and had difficulty in his mobility. Further, the claimant was having difficulty in his speech and the injury has also affected the claimant’s memory power. In addition, he had also undergone brain operation and was in ICU for 45 days. Both his hands and legs were paralyzed and had difficulty in his mobility. Further, the claimant was having difficulty in his speech and the injury has also affected the claimant’s memory power. There was pain in the claimant’s head and there were scars of the operation and according to the Doctor, his physical disability could be assessed as 44%. 8. Considering the appellant’s work as a labour class, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 252 , the functional disability has to be assessed as per the vocation/career/job of the injured. The disability has been noted by the learned Tribunal and the evidence which has come on record and even considered by the learned Tribunal would be sufficient to lead to a conclusion that the claimant would not be in a position to continue with his work as was doing earlier and at a very young age of 19 years, he suffered brain operation, sustained the effect of paralysis in both his hands and was in ICU for 45 days. The claimant was not in a position to pursue his education or continue with the labour work in any way, hence, this Court assesses the functional disability of the claimant @ 50%. The multiplier of 18 is required to be adopted and therefore, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 7,56,000/- (Rs. 7,000/- per month x 50% x 12 x 18). 9. The medical bills to the extent of Rs. 5,34,000/- have been proved but the claimant was in ICU for 45 days and would have taken the support of family members and other acquaintances for the sustenance and recovery and would have spent amount towards special diet. The family would have also spent amount for transportation and other expenses. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal under the head of Special Diet, Attendant’s Charges and Transportation is required to be increased to Rs. 50,000/-. 10. The claimant would not have been in a position to continue with his work and would not have worked for about 12 months. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal under the head of Special Diet, Attendant’s Charges and Transportation is required to be increased to Rs. 50,000/-. 10. The claimant would not have been in a position to continue with his work and would not have worked for about 12 months. The learned Tribunal has considered the loss of income for about six months but in view of the injuries sustained and the sufferings, this Court is of the view that the claimant would not have been in a position to work for 12 months. Hence, under the head of loss of income, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- is granted (Rs. 5,000/- per month x 12 months). 11. Under the head of pain, shock and suffering, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 35,000/-. The claimant was in the ICU for 45 days and on account of his injuries, would not have been able to continue with his daily work and the injuries would have caused great pain and suffering. His physical injuries and sufferings would have led to mental agony. Hence, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- would be just and proper so as to pacify the claimant for the suffering undergone under the head of pain, shock and suffering. 12. The claimant was aged 19 years at the time of accident. He suffered a brain operation and also paralysis of the limbs. The accident would have affected the claimant’s marriage prospects and would have not been in a position to lead a normal life. Therefore, considering the physical disability, the claimant would be required to be compensated for the loss of amenities as well as the marriage prospects. Hence under the said head, this Court deems it just and proper to grant an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 13. Thus, the computation can be made as under: Details Amount Future loss of income Rs. 7,56,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 5,34,000/- Special Diet, Attendant’s Charges and Transportation Charges Rs. 50,000/- Actual Loss of Income Rs. 60,000/- Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of Amenities of Life Rs. 1,00,000/- TOTAL Rs. 17,00,000/- 14. The learned Tribunal has attributed 20% negligence of the injured claimant. Hence, Rs. 3,40,000/- would be deducted towards his negligence and therefore, after deduction the amount would come to Rs. 13,60,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- Actual Loss of Income Rs. 60,000/- Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of Amenities of Life Rs. 1,00,000/- TOTAL Rs. 17,00,000/- 14. The learned Tribunal has attributed 20% negligence of the injured claimant. Hence, Rs. 3,40,000/- would be deducted towards his negligence and therefore, after deduction the amount would come to Rs. 13,60,000/- (Rs. 17,00,000/- minus Rs. 3,40,000/-). 15. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 8,05,760/- with rate of interest @ 9% per annum, which the respondent/s are liable to deposit, with the enhanced amount as Rs. 5,54,240/- (Rs. 13,60,000/- minus Rs. 8,05,760/-). 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 with rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application. 16. After deposit of the above/enhanced amount, it is directed that the appellant-claimant be paid 80% of the said amount by Account Payee Cheque/NEFT/RTGS, after carrying the necessary procedures for verification of his identity. The remaining 20% be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for a period of two years and on expiry of the period of two years, the said amount with the interest earned thereon be handed over to the claimant, after following the necessary procedures, without any further reference to the Court. 17. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No. 636 of 2017 stands modified to the above extent. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.