JUDGMENT : RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, J. 1. The appellant was injured in a motor accident. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,75,800/- (after deducting 50% for contributing negligence) for the injuries suffered by him with interest of 7.5% per-annum. Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by filing the present appeal which is directed against the judgment and award dated 08.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, (MACT Cases), Jodhpur (for short the “Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No.931/2004. 2. The facts germane to the present appeal as noted by the learned Tribunal are as follows:- 3. That on 06.09.2000, claimant Kheraj Ram was travelling from his village to Jodhpur on his motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-19-4M-5271. The claimant was going slowly on his correct side of the road. At about 10:30 A.M., between the Gram Sevak Training Centre and Man Singh Deora Agriculture Farm, a R.S.R.T.C. contracted bus No.RJ-13-P-2078 collided with the motorcycle of the claimant. The bus driver Ajijudin was driving the bus rashly and negligently from the opposite direction. As a result of the collision, claimant fell 15-20 feet away head-long on the road sustaining serious injuries to his head, hands, legs and other body parts, rendering him unconscious at the scene of occurrence. His brother Rajuram, who was following behind, took him to the hospital where he was admitted. 4. It is case of the appellant that initially he was admitted to the Suncity Hospital, Jodhpur and later on to some other hospitals in Jodhpur, thereafter at New Delhi and Bombay where, necessary treatment was given to him for several months. It is further his case that he suffered severe impairment to shoulder, elbow, wrist and fingers of the left hand. He is still undergoing treatment and the doctors have declared that he has suffered 42.2 permanent disabilities, in relation to the whole body. 5. Appellant further claimed that at the time of accident, he was 38 years of age and he owned two trucks, one of which he used to drive himself. Additionally, he possess 170 Bighas of agriculture land in his name with two tube-wells on it. He used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month from truck operation and agriculture work combinedly prior to the accident. In total, appellant has claimed Rs. 44,49,605/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 6. Additionally, he possess 170 Bighas of agriculture land in his name with two tube-wells on it. He used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month from truck operation and agriculture work combinedly prior to the accident. In total, appellant has claimed Rs. 44,49,605/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 6. Written statement on behalf of the respondent No.1 was not filed despite opportunities. However, respondent Nos.2 and 3 the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short the “R.S.R.T.C.”) and bus driver filed its written statement denying all the allegations of the appellant as well as facts mentioned therein. 7. In support of the claim petition, appellant has examined three witnesses. He examined himself as PW-1, Rajuram as PW-2, as an eye-witness of the accident and Dr. Mahendra Aaseri as PW-3, who has proved the disability certificate of the appellant. The respondent bus driver Ajijudin (DW-1) examined himself in the defence. 8. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and appreciation of evidence held that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Considering the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, the Tribunal apportioned the liability for the accident in the ratio of 50:50 between the driver of the bus and the appellant. It was further held that appellant is entitled to get the compensation from Respondent No. 2 and 3 the RSRTC jointly and severally with driver of the bus. The heads in which the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation are as follows:- S.No. Head Amount 1. For permanent disability Rs. 2,43,000 2. For pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000 3. Hospitalization expenditure Rs. 3,600 4. Medical bills and other ancillary expenses Rs. 70,000 5. Transportation expenditure Rs. 10,000 Total Rs. 3,51,600 Compensation awarded after deduction of 50% amount for contributing negligence Rs. 1,75,800/- Compensation awarded after deduction of 50% amount for contributing negligence Rs. 1,75,800/- 9. Aggrieved by the award of the learned Tribunal, the appellant herein has filed present appeal under Section 173 of the Act before this Court for suitable modification/enhancement of the impugned award. 10. Mr. 3,51,600 Compensation awarded after deduction of 50% amount for contributing negligence Rs. 1,75,800/- Compensation awarded after deduction of 50% amount for contributing negligence Rs. 1,75,800/- 9. Aggrieved by the award of the learned Tribunal, the appellant herein has filed present appeal under Section 173 of the Act before this Court for suitable modification/enhancement of the impugned award. 10. Mr. Deepak Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently initiated his arguments by submitting that in absence of any evidence relating to negligence on the part of the appellant and in view of the direct evidence available on record, learned Tribunal erred in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant also. According to him, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver Ajijudin and there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. 11. Per contra, according to learned counsel for the RSRTC, accident took place due to negligent driving on the part of the appellant, who was riding his motorcycle in the middle of the road. He relied on site plan of crime scene (Ex-3) and argued that the impugned order dated 08.11.2005, passed by the learned tribunal, ex-facie, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality in respect of contributory negligence warranting interference in this appeal. 12. Based on various facts mentioned in the site plan (Ex-3), learned tribunal has determined the appellant’s 50% contributory negligence in causing the accident. 13. In view of rival contentions put forth, on perusal of the record, it would be clear that there has been no cross-examination of appellant by the RSRTC regarding the fact of contributory negligence. The RSRTC has even denied the involvement of the roadways bus in the said accident and has instead claimed that appellant was hit by a military vehicle, which the appellant has denied during his cross-examination. Rajuram (PW-2), an eyewitness to the incident, also deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 14. Perusal of record further shows that driver of the involved bus has appeared in evidence, but there is not even the slightest statement from him suggesting that the claimant was negligent in causing the accident. Instead, he has denied that his vehicle caused the accident. 15. 14. Perusal of record further shows that driver of the involved bus has appeared in evidence, but there is not even the slightest statement from him suggesting that the claimant was negligent in causing the accident. Instead, he has denied that his vehicle caused the accident. 15. FIR (Ex-2) was lodged by Raju Ram (PW-2) against the bus driver which proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet (Ex-1) against the bus driver for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC with specific allegations that the bus driver caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving. If the investigation officer, who prepared the site plan (Ex-3) or any one of the two motbir witnesses of the said site plan memo would have appeared in evidence and proved the contents of the site plan, then only content of site plan could have considered to be proved as per law because if this had happened, the other party would have got an opportunity to cross-examine the witness regarding contributory negligence. Only in that case, contents of site-plan could have been relied upon by the Tribunal. In this context, the tribunal was not justified in drawing any conclusion on the basis of the content of site plan without being proved. 16. Besides it, the mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a site plan, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other driver. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction depends on number of factors like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other. From the site plan of the accident, one may presume the manner in which the accident caused, but in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of any of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Tribunal should not have presumed negligence on the part of any individual. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Tribunal should not have presumed negligence on the part of any individual. The mere suspicion based on site plan (Ex-3) cannot take the place of evidence, particularly when the direct evidence like statement of claimant and Rajuram (PW-2) an eye-witness, was available on record. 17. In view of the direct evidence, Tribunal was not justified to hold that the accident occurred due to 50% rash and negligent driving on the part of the claimant. There is no evidence on record to suggest any negligence on the part of the appellant. 18. In view of the aforesaid, I therefore hold that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the said accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the appellant as well, as the said conclusion was not based on legal evidence but based on mere presumption and surmises. 19. In my considered view, the contributory negligence apportioned at 50% on the appellant and 50% on the driver of the offending bus is erroneous keeping in view the legal principles laid down in (2013) 9 SCC 166 Jiju Kuruvila vs. Kunjujamma Mohan by Hon’ble the Apex Court on this aspect. Thus, I am of the firm conclusion that the negligence is wholly on the part of the driver of the offending bus, since he was driving the heavier vehicle. Therefore, I set aside the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant as apportioned. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has further challenged the determination made by the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant at the time of the accident was merely 38 years of age. The compensation awarded under various heads by the learned Claims Tribunal is very scarce as compared to the losses suffered by the appellant. 21. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Chotia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal was on the higher side. He emphasized that the appellant has suffered 42.2% permanent disability qua his injured limbs and not qua the whole body. Learned Tribunal ought to have taken the “functional disability” qua the whole body less than the percentage of permanent disability. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has already awarded adequate compensation, rather on the higher side towards all the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 22. Learned Tribunal ought to have taken the “functional disability” qua the whole body less than the percentage of permanent disability. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has already awarded adequate compensation, rather on the higher side towards all the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 22. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents available on record. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 2011 (1) SCC 343 has laid down two major heads i.e. Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) and Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) as well as various sub-heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. 24. It was held that personal injury cases can be categorised in two classes- Routine personal injury cases and Serious personal injury cases. Routine personal injury cases- 25. It was further held that in routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded under the heads which broadly includes the following:- Expenses relating to medicines Expenses relating to hospitalization incidental expenditures Expenses relating to transportation Expenses relating to nourishing food Expenses relating to other miscellaneous expenditures Expenses relating to attendant Expenses relating to property loss/repair Loss of earning during the period of treatment Any other pecuniary loss supported by evidence Damages for pain, suffering and trauma 26. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma is a non-pecuniary damage which involves determination of lump sum amount with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Serious cases of personal injury- 27. It was further held that in serious personal injury cases, compensation may be awarded under some additional heads but for awarding compensation for these heads it is essential to have specific medical evidence on record, corroborating the evidence of the claimant. These head includes the following- Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability Future medical expenses Loss of amenities and loss of prospects of marriage Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity) Assessments of pecuniary damages 28. Assessments of pecuniary damages do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages 29. Assessment of compensation under the head “Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability” usually poses some difficulty. 30. Assessments of pecuniary damages do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages 29. Assessment of compensation under the head “Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability” usually poses some difficulty. 30. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Any given percentage of permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 31. Based on the documentary as well as oral medical evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal will first have to determine whether the permanent disability mentioned in the certificate relates to the whole body of the claimant or any specific part/limb of the body. 32. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, the given percentage of permanent disability would result in same loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. 33. When the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. If yes, then up to what percentage of his income? 34. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. 35. When the doctor’s statement or disability certificate does not specify whether the permanent disability stated is in relation to the entire body or to any specific part of the body and if the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to ascertain corresponding “functional permanent disability” with reference to the whole body. 36. 36. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposes to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give “ready to use” disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who are, without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to the genuineness of such certificates. 37. Mere production of a disability certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross- examination with reference to the certificate. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. 38. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can order reputed local Govt. or private Hospitals/Medical Colleges to constitute a Medical Board and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for fresh assessment of permanent disability. 39. Overall, determining "permanent functional disability" is crucial in personal injury cases because it is advantageous both for claimant and the insurer. It helps to anticipate the claimants future needs and rehabilitation in life. It is also essential for accurately assessing the extent of harm caused by the injury and ensuring that victims receive fair compensation to rebuild their lives. 40. Assessment of compensation under the head of “future medical expenses” depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. 41. Assessment of compensation under the head of “Loss of amenities and loss of prospects of marriage as well as Loss of expectation” of life also involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% or even anything more than 50%, the need to award compensation separately under these two heads may disappear and only a token amount may be awarded under these two heads, otherwise there would be doubling in the compensation amount. 42. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% or even anything more than 50%, the need to award compensation separately under these two heads may disappear and only a token amount may be awarded under these two heads, otherwise there would be doubling in the compensation amount. 42. In light of the above principles, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant for each head of compensation are now being discussed. Expenses relating to Medicines 43. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal has erred in granting expenses towards medical bills only to the tune of Rs. 70,000 whereas the appellant had submitted bills of medical expenses totaling Rs 1,24,273.62/-. 44. It appears from the perusal of impugned award that the amount of any bill has not been rejected by the learned Tribunal. Additionally, the learned counsel for the appellant has not submitted any such chart before this court based on which it can be determined whether the amount of any particular bill has not been granted. This proves that Rs. 1,24,273.62 was not spent by claimant as treatment expenses and medicines. The Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding the said sum. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the said argument. Expenses relating to hospitalization incidental expenditures 45. Further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for the hospitalisation and other related incidental charges is on the lower side; the Tribunal did not consider the fact that the claimant took treatment in two hospitals at Jodhpur thereafter in Bombay and New Delhi as per discharge tickets (Ex-127 to 130). 46. It was further argued that the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.3,600/- towards admission in hospitals, whereas the appellant remained hospitalized for a significant period in four different hospitals in Jodhpur, Delhi, and Bombay. A substantial amount of incidental expenses were incurred during this period. For this reason, the amount awarded under this head has been argued as extremely low and a prayer has been made to enhance it. 47. Perusal of record reveals that as per different discharge tickets (Exhibit-127 to 130), appellant has been admitted to two hospitals in Jodhpur and also to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai and Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. For this reason, the amount awarded under this head has been argued as extremely low and a prayer has been made to enhance it. 47. Perusal of record reveals that as per different discharge tickets (Exhibit-127 to 130), appellant has been admitted to two hospitals in Jodhpur and also to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai and Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. He was admitted to these different hospitals for a total of 15 days for different periods. In such a situation, the claimant is entitled to receive a total of Rs. 15,000 as incidental expenses incurred during the period of hospitalisation. Expenses relating to Conveyance 48. With regard to the expenses granted under the Conveyance expenses, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. Various document and tickets etc. exhibit 140 to 173, 198 to 232 and 107 to 113 were produced by the appellant in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that during the initial days of the treatment, the appellant was never in a position to travel by two wheeler or a public transport and as such the expenses incurred on hired taxies was much more than the compensation awarded under this head. The appellant was not in a position to go alone to New Delhi and Mumbai for treatment, so he had to travel with an attendant for which considerable expenditure was incurred for his conveyance expenses. He pressed upon modifying the compensation granted under the above-mentioned head. 49. This Court recognize the fact that expenses under this head refer to the costs associated with transporting the injured to and from medical facilities for treatment. Providing adequate compensation for conveyance charges in an accident claim case is essential for fairness. 50. In the present case, it's evident that the applicant has incurred expenses related to transportation for medical treatment in various cities like Jodhpur, Mumbai, and New Delhi. These expenses include not only the cost of traveling from the applicant's residence to these cities but also transportation within these metropolitan areas. Considering the journey undertaken by the appellant and the duration of treatment, it's fair and reasonable to provide adequate compensation for conveyance charges. Given the circumstances described, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for conveyance charges appears to be insufficient. Considering the journey undertaken by the appellant and the duration of treatment, it's fair and reasonable to provide adequate compensation for conveyance charges. Given the circumstances described, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for conveyance charges appears to be insufficient. The actual expenses incurred by the applicant and their family members for transportation are likely to be much higher, considering the long distances traveled and the associated costs within metropolitan areas. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reassess the compensation amount to ensure that it adequately covers the expenses incurred by the appellant for transportation. In light of the aforesaid, the appellant is held entitled to total amount of Rs. 25,000 as transportation expenses. Expenses relating to Nourishing food 51. Learned counsel for the appellant also pressed upon modifying the compensation awarded under this head. It is his claim that the appellant has spent a huge sum on nourishing food and special diet during the long treatment period. 52. Perusal of record reveals that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation against nourishing food and special diet expenditure whereas claimant had given a sworn statement that he had spent Rs. 50,000 for nutritious food. It is necessary for an injured person to consume nutritious food to support his body's immune system, aid in recovery and provide essential nutrients necessary for healing. Nutritious food is compulsorily required to maintain strength and improve overall well-being during illness. 53. In most cases, an injured person or his family would not be able to maintain daily accounts of expenditure on nutritious food for patient. It's not typically a requirement for sick individuals to track their spending on nutritious food. 54. Considering the treatment period mentioned in different discharge tickets (Exhibit 127 to 130), it would, thus, be appropriate to compute the lump-sum compensation of Rs. 30,000/- against nourishing food and special diet expenditure. Expenses relating to Attendant 55. With regard to Attendant charges it is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal in spite of evidence available on record, the claim towards attendant charges has been ignored. Perusal of record reveals that there was clear sworn statement of claimant that during the treatment period he had to spend Rs.25,000 for the attendant. The attendant was his brother. 56. With regard to Attendant charges it is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal in spite of evidence available on record, the claim towards attendant charges has been ignored. Perusal of record reveals that there was clear sworn statement of claimant that during the treatment period he had to spend Rs.25,000 for the attendant. The attendant was his brother. 56. Now the question arises whether a close relative cannot be an attendant of the patient or whether no amount is paid to a person as attendant because he is a close relative of the patient. 57. In the Indian cultural context, it's common for family members to provide care giving assistance for sick relatives. Family members often share deep emotional bonds with the patient, which provides valuable emotional support during difficult times. This emotional connection can contribute significantly to the patient's well-being and sense of comfort. 58. Family members are readily available to provide care as they often live in close proximity or within the same household. This accessibility ensures that the patient's needs can be addressed promptly and consistently. Family members are familiar with the patient's dietary preferences and other habits and routines related to illness and healing. This familiarity contributes to the patient's comfort. Generally, relying on family members as attendant is more cost-effective compared to hiring professional caregivers or outside assistance. 59. Whenever a family member provides his services as an attendant, the patient definitely compensates him in some form or the other, either monetarily or otherwise because such attendant also spends their time, effort and labour for the patient which they otherwise would have used. In the present case, on oath statement of the claimant is that he had paid Rs. 25,000 to his brother for providing the services as attendant. 60. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the firm opinion that learned tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any compensation under this head. However, considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment, a sum of Rs. 20,000 is awarded towards attendant charges to the appellant. Expenses relating to property loss/repair 61. It is further argued that no reason was assigned by learned tribunal for not compensating for damages caused to motorcycle being driven by the appellant. Perusal of the record further reveals that in the claim petition, appellant had demanded compensation of Rs. 20,000 is awarded towards attendant charges to the appellant. Expenses relating to property loss/repair 61. It is further argued that no reason was assigned by learned tribunal for not compensating for damages caused to motorcycle being driven by the appellant. Perusal of the record further reveals that in the claim petition, appellant had demanded compensation of Rs. 9,605/- due to damage to his motorcycle and had also made statements to the same effect during the trial. However, the fact of awarding compensation under this head has not been considered by the Tribunal, nor has any reason been given for refusing the same. Exhibit 35 to 37 bills were also produced in evidence by appellant in relation to the expenditure incurred under this head. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 9,600 is awarded to the appellant towards motorcycle repair. Loss of earning during the period of treatment 62. It is further argued that loss of income during the period of treatment was also not considered as appellant remained under treatment for a quite long period and was deprived of his earnings during that period. 63. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of the accident, the claimant was 38 years of age and was earning income to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, the claimant was truck operator and working as a truck driver. He was having a valid and effective driving licence. The oral evidence to this effect has also been adduced in the trial. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- which is on the lower side. He further submits that there is a specific pleading in the claim petition and then reiterated the same in evidence. Thus, the learned Tribunal ought to have calculated monthly income of the claimant to be Rs. 10,000 per month. 64. This Court shall now consider the issue with regard to the income of the Appellant. In the claim petition, appellant stated that he owned two trucks and 170 bighas of agricultural land, earning an income of Rs.10,000 per month as a truck operator and from agricultural work before the accident. 10,000 per month. 64. This Court shall now consider the issue with regard to the income of the Appellant. In the claim petition, appellant stated that he owned two trucks and 170 bighas of agricultural land, earning an income of Rs.10,000 per month as a truck operator and from agricultural work before the accident. He reiterated this statement in evidence during the trial, mentioning that he himself drove one of the two trucks now he was idle after the accident. Regarding documentary evidence, claimant submitted his driving license (Exhibit 6), which also endorsed his ability to drive a heavy goods vehicle. However, he did not exihibated any registration certificate in his name as proof of truck ownership although the photocopy of the Registration Certificate of some trucks in his name available on the record. According to Jamabandi (Ex-235), it is proved that he is khatedar of agricultural land, although his actual income from agriculture is not proved. 65. Therefore, though no definite proof of income of the appellant was proved nevertheless, according to the evidence mentioned above, it is definitely proved that he was a heavy goods vehicle driver. He is also khatedar of agricultural land yet he can still get the agricultural work done through someone else. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month notionally. 66. Now, for calculating loss of income during the period of treatment, it is seen that different discharge tickets (Exhibit 127 to 130) proves that appellant remained under treatment from 06.09.2000 to 11.07.2001. During this treatment period, he was admitted to two hospitals in Jodhpur, as well as hospitals in Mumbai and New Delhi for various periods and for various reasons. 67. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the period of treatment taken by the petitioner, it is reasonable to hold that loss of income incurred by the appellant for the period of above mentioned ten months is Rs. 4,000 X 10 = Rs. 40,000/-. 68. In view of this Court, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has also failed to consider the loss of income during the period of treatment. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma 69. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a lower compensation towards pain, sufferings and trauma. 40,000/-. 68. In view of this Court, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has also failed to consider the loss of income during the period of treatment. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma 69. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a lower compensation towards pain, sufferings and trauma. According to him, other non-pecuniary heads were not even considered in accordance with the injuries suffered by the appellant. 70. In the instant case, it has come on record that the appellant was 38 years old and he primarily earned his living by working as a truck driver. The X-ray report (Ex-11), discharge tickets (Ex-127 to 130), permanent disability certificate (Ex-234) and statement of the Dr. Mahendra Aseri (AW-3) indicates that appellant has suffered many serious fractures on his body such as Fracture of Occipital bone, Fracture of left Clavicle bone, Dislocation of left shoulder with fracture, Fracture of upper end of humerus, Brachial palsy of left hand at C8T8 level. Medical evidence also proves that as a result of the above serious injuries the claimant now has a stiff left shoulder with movement limited to only 50 degrees. He has stiff left shoulder with movement up to 50 degree only. Movement of left elbow of claimant is between 20 to 110 degree only. Claimant’s left wrist is jammed. All the fingers and both thumbs of claimant left hand are jammed. His left hand and arm are much thinner than his right hand and arm. He is unable to make fist. Muscles of forearm are atrophied. As a result of all this, his whole body is now 42.2% permanently disabled. He underwent treatment by being admitted to two hospitals in Jodhpur thereafter Bombay Hospitals, Bomay and Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi for different periods. Internal fixations were also performed on his body and later they were also removed. 71. The calculation of compensation for pain, suffering and trauma can be subjective with regard to injuries and impairment of injured person. It can vary widely depending on the specific circumstances of each case. The extent and severity of injuries suffered play a significant role in determining the amount of compensation under this head. More severe injuries results in significant pain and suffering, which generally merit higher compensation. It can vary widely depending on the specific circumstances of each case. The extent and severity of injuries suffered play a significant role in determining the amount of compensation under this head. More severe injuries results in significant pain and suffering, which generally merit higher compensation. The duration of the pain and suffering endured by the injured, extent to which the injury affected the claimant’s ability to perform daily activities and work is also required to be taken into account. 72. Above narrated medical evidence including diagnoses, treatment records and expert testimony could easily substantiate the extent of the physical discomfort and distress, emotional and psychological anguish, feelings of fear, anxiety, depression, humiliation and overall quality of life caused by the injury and experienced by the claimant. In the present case, the trauma undergone by the appellant due to the accident is comparatively severe and long lasting effect. For a person engaged in manual avocation and activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand that loss of use of left hand is a significant deprivation of the ability to earn. Compensation under this head must reflect a genuine attempt to restore the physical dignity of the claimant. 73. However, looking to the age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the appellant and the effect thereof on the future life of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by learned Claims Tribunal under this head is not justifiable and there is need for modification for the same. Therefore, considering the fact that the accident has occurred in the year 2000, claimant would be entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards pain, sufferings and trauma. Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability 74. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that compensation of Rs.1,21,500/- awarded due to permanent disability is also very scarce and learned Tribunal has also failed to consider future prospects of the claimant. 75. He submitted that prior to the accident, the appellant was only earning member in his family who had number of trucks in his names and huge bighas of agriculture field to cultivate. After injuries he lost power of his left hand, so he cannot perform any type of work even, he cannot put his ‘dhoti’ without assistance. 75. He submitted that prior to the accident, the appellant was only earning member in his family who had number of trucks in his names and huge bighas of agriculture field to cultivate. After injuries he lost power of his left hand, so he cannot perform any type of work even, he cannot put his ‘dhoti’ without assistance. He further submitted that he was running and carrying on his business with all his hard work and was making every possible effort to increase his income. 76. Inviting the attention of the Court towards the x-ray report (Ex-11), permanent disability certificate (Ex-234), statement of Dr. Mahendra Aseri (PW-3), it is his contention that owing to the accident, claimant has suffered various serious injuries as noticed earlier. 77. It is further argued that as a result of all this, his whole body is now 42.2% permanently disabled. This aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal and no adequate amount has been awarded under this head. 78. He has further contended that in computing the compensation due to the appellant on account of loss of future income, future prospects of increase of income had not been taken into account by the tribunal. 79. He further submitted that an addition of 40% to the income of the appellant should have been awarded toward future prospects as appellant was self employed and was below 40 years of the age and accordingly he is also entitled to future prospects in view of the pronouncement by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi AIR 2017 (SC) 5157 . The multiplier adopted by the courts below is 16 whereas the correct multiplier should have been 17. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the amount of compensation under this head is liable to be enhanced. 80. Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Rakesh Chotia learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the amount awarded by the tribunal under this head is more than adequate. According to him the correct multiplier should have been 15. He further submitted that the appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation for future prospects as no evidence was adduced by the appellant in this regard and there was no scope for future prospects in income of the appellant. 81. According to him the correct multiplier should have been 15. He further submitted that the appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation for future prospects as no evidence was adduced by the appellant in this regard and there was no scope for future prospects in income of the appellant. 81. In Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others reported as 2020 SCC OnLine SC 752 it has been held that in injury claim cases, claimant is entitled to get amount for future prospect too, apart from compensation for future loss of income. In view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 5157 if the claimant is self-employed or a person on a fixed salary and his age is below 40 years, then the future prospects should be paid to the tune of 40% of the established income. The Appellant being at the age of 38 years will be granted 40% of future prospects. 82. Further, the loss of future income must be calculated in terms of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically held that where the claimant suffers a Permanent Disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of the Permanent Disability on his earning capacity. The effect of the Permanent Disability on the earning capacity of the injured must be considered. 83. Dr. Mahendra Aseri (PW-3), in his deposition has described the permanent disabilities of the claimant with reference to his entire body and the same fact is mentioned in the certificate also. However, to do complete justice, looking to the nature of injuries and impairment, this Court propose to assess the “loss of future earning capacity” as 40%. 84. This Court has fix income of the claimant at Rs. 4,000/- per month notionally. As discussed above, apart from the same, the appellant is entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). 85. Therefore, monthly income of the claimant inclusive of future prospects is re-assessed as Rs. 5,600/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs. 1,600/-), and the annual income comes to Rs. 67,200/- (Rs. 5,600/- X 12). 86. As discussed above, apart from the same, the appellant is entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). 85. Therefore, monthly income of the claimant inclusive of future prospects is re-assessed as Rs. 5,600/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs. 1,600/-), and the annual income comes to Rs. 67,200/- (Rs. 5,600/- X 12). 86. The use of multiplayer of 16 by the tribunal was wrong as the claimant is aged 38 years of age and the appropriate multiplier laid down in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 would be 15. 87. As noticed above, since the “loss of further earning capacity” of the claimant is assessed as 40% hence, the compensation under the head “loss of future earnings” is re-assessed to Rs.4,03,200/- (Rs.67,200 X 15 X 40%). Future medical expenses 88. Since no oral or documentary evidence has been produced to support compensation under this head, the appellant is not entitled to receive any amount. Loss of amenities and loss of prospects of marriage as well as Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity) 89. No specific evidence has been produced by the claimant indicating that looking to the deprivation or reduction in physical power and ability his quality of life, well-being, loss of enjoyment of life's pleasures, pursuit of hobbies, recreational pursuits, and social interactions would be affected in a way that would result in a premature or shortened lifespan. Nevertheless, experiencing frustration and disappointment in the wake of physical damage from an accident is natural and understandable. Suddenly, simple tasks become arduous challenges. Loss of physical capability can lead to frustration as one struggles to adapt to new limitations and navigate a world that was once familiar but now seems dauntingly different. Feelings of disappointment may arise due to the apparent gap between injurds’ past capabilities and his current reality. Each setback, each obstacle can feel like a cruel reminder of the unfairness caused to the injured by the destiny. 90. It may be noted that compensation for future loss of earnings has awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 40%. Therefore, looking to the age, nature of injury, deprivation, permanent disability suffered by the claimant a token amount to the tune of Rs. 90. It may be noted that compensation for future loss of earnings has awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 40%. Therefore, looking to the age, nature of injury, deprivation, permanent disability suffered by the claimant a token amount to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded under these two heads, since any higher amount would result in doubling of the compensation amount. 91. Resultantly, a comparative table of compensation granted to the appellant under the various heads by this court vis-a-vis learned Tribunal is as follows: S.N Head Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Expenses relating to Medicines Rs.70,000/- Rs.70,000/- 2. Hospitalization incidental expenditures Rs.3,600/- Rs.15,000/- 3. Expenses relating to conveyance Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- 4. Expenses relating to nourishing food - Rs.30,000/- 5. Expenses relating to attendant - Rs.20,000/- 6. Expenses relating to property loss/repair - Rs.9,600/- 7. Loss of earning during the period of treatment - Rs.40,000/- 8. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/- 9. Loss of future earnings Rs.2,43,000/- Rs.4,03,200/- 10. Future medical expenses - - 11. Loss of amenities and loss of prospects of marriage as well as Loss of expectation of life - Rs.30,000/- Total compensation amount Rs.3,51,600/- Rs.6,92,800/- 92. A 50% reduction of Rs.1,75,800/- (Rupees One Lac Seventy Five Thousand Eight Hundred) in the compensation amount was made by learned Tribunal for claimant’s 50% contributory negligence. Therefore, total compensation of Rs.1,75,800/-(Rupees One Lac Seventy Five Thousand Eight Hundred) awarded by learned Tribunal to the appellant is increased to reach a new total of Rs.6,92,800/- (Rupees Six Lac Ninety Two Thousand Eight Hundred). The amount of compensation is modified to the above extent. 93. I do not consider it necessary to modify the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal i.e. 7.5% from the date of the application till the date of payment, which will also be payable on the enhanced amount of compensation. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid within one month along with interest from the date of filing of the appeal. 94. The proportion and disbursement shall be ordered by the learned Tribunal after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the claimant. 95. In light of above observations, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment of the learned Claims Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to cost.