JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The injured claimant challenges the judgment dated 31/01/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Nadiad in MACP No. 342 of 2002. 2. The facts of the case could be stated as under: 2.1. On 17/11/2001, the claimant was standing along with her husband and son on the left side of the Antroli Road opposite Ragvanaj cross lane, to go to Vaso, after offering prayers at Shankrachayra temple. As per the say of the claimant, at that time at about 7:30 hours in the evening, opponent no. 1 came with tempo bearing registration no. GJ-15-X-5400 from the side of Nadiad in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant, her husband and her son as a result of which the claimant suffered serious injuries. The claimant was initially taken to Government Hospital, Kheda and thereafter shifted to V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad and there she stayed as indoor patent till 16/01/2002. 3. Mr. Paresh Darji, learned advocate for the appellant claimant submitted that the income of the claimant was urged as Rs. 2,000/- from sewing work, however, it was not believed. Learned advocate further submitted that when no documentary evidence are produced, the income has to be considered as per minimum wages schedule as has been observed in the case of Arvind Kumar Pandey and Others vs. Girish Pandey and Another in Civil Appeal No. 2512 of 2024 and Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 20918 of 2022 and accordingly prospective rise in income should be given and considering the disability, future loss of income is also required to be assessed appropriately. Learned advocate also submitted that period of hospitalization and injury suffered by the claimant also requires reconsideration. 4. Per contra, Mr. G.C. Majmudar, learned advocate submitted that amount of Rs. 1,500/- assessed for the claimant as her monthly income is just and proper and considering 13% functional disability, the amount has been granted. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate also submitted that the amount which has been given under various other heads is also just and proper and no indulgence of this Court is necessary in the present matter. 5. The claimant has urged her income as Rs. 2,000/- per month from sewing work. Though she has not produced any documentary evidence, the said income is required to be considered in the present matter. 5. The claimant has urged her income as Rs. 2,000/- per month from sewing work. Though she has not produced any documentary evidence, the said income is required to be considered in the present matter. It is not always expected of housewife doing sewing work at home to maintain books of account. As laid down in case of Arvind Kumar Pandey (supra), the income of the house maker can be assessed on the basis of minimum wages schedule of the State with prospective rise in income. Age of the claimant at the time of accident was 28 years and hence 40% rise in income has to be assessed. Thus, adding Rs. 800/- monthly income of the claimant would come to Rs. 2,800/-. Considering 13% disability and applying multiplier of 17 as the age of the claimant was 28 years at the time of accident, the future loss of income would come Rs. 74,256/- (Rs. 2,800/- x 13% x 12 x 17). As per the evidence on record, the claimant would not have been in a position to work for about three months and hence the claimant would be entitled to get the actual loss of income of Rs. 6,000/-. Medical expenses of Rs. 11,500/- has been approved as proved before the Tribunal. 6. However, this Court is of the opinion that the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is on lower side. The doctor had given medical certificate which was produced on record at Exh.32 which shows 32% permanent disability. It was only on the consent of the parties, 13% disability has been assessed by the learned Tribunal. The claimant had remained as indoor patient till 16/01/2022. Because of the accident, the claimant would have suffered shock, and suffering, and pain would have continued even after the accident and she would have taken time to recover, hence, considering these aspects, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is increased to Rs. 25,000/- and correspondingly, the amount for special diet, attendance charges and transportation is also increased to Rs. 15,000/-. 7. Hence, total amount of compensation would come as under: Future loss of income Rs. 74,256/- Actual loss of income Rs. 6,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 25,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 11,500/- Special diet, attendance charges and transportation etc. Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 1,31,756/- 8. As the Tribunal has already granted compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. 7. Hence, total amount of compensation would come as under: Future loss of income Rs. 74,256/- Actual loss of income Rs. 6,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 25,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 11,500/- Special diet, attendance charges and transportation etc. Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 1,31,756/- 8. As the Tribunal has already granted compensation of Rs. 68,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the claimant would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 63,756/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The enhanced amount is directed to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. 9. After deposit of the amount, total amount be given to the claimant by way of an account payee cheque or RTGS or NEFT. 10. The impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. The present appeal is partly allowed. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal, if received.