JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge has been given by the injured claimant to the judgment dated 30.12.2017 passed by the MACT (Main), Patan in MACP no.258/13. 2. Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the injured claimant suffered from amputation of right leg, 3 different platings in right hand and a puncture in the intestine. The very condition of the claimant shows that he would not be in a position to earn the same income or continue with the work as he was doing earlier. Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that the amputation of the right leg is coupled with the fact that he has suffered injury in the intestine with 3 different platings in right hand, which would add to the physical disability of amputation and hence, submitted that the assessment of the functional disability ought to have been made in accordance to the evidence on record and the physical disability along with the fact of his profession which in this case is being an agriculturist. Advocate Mr. Thakkar further submitted that the pain, shock and suffering would not only be at the time of the accident, but in case of amputation and injury on other parts of the body and specifically to the intestine would bring a lifelong injury and suffering to the claimant and hence, the Tribunal was required to compensate the claimant under the head of pain, shock and suffering so that the amount could have been evaluated as per the pain which the claimant would have and which he would suffer throughout his life and hence, urged to grant amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering corresponding to the injury and the functional disability and further stated that the assessment of the income ought to have been on the basis of the work undertaken by the claimant. Advocate Mr. Thakkar stated that being an agriculturist, it would be very difficult to produce any statement of accounts regarding the income and the expenses as the agricultural income is not taxable and hence, no evidence in the form of ITR could be brought on record and thus, stated that the Tribunal was required to assess the income considering the managerial skill of supervision of the claimant for the agricultural property as well as the to the fact that he was earning income by depositing milk in the Cooperative Society. 3. Advocate Mr. 3. Advocate Mr. Gadhia for the insurance company submitted that the assessment of the physical disability is considered by following Part-II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and thus, the assessment is in accordance to the provisions of law and further submitted that the claimant has failed to prove his income and thus, submitted that at the most, the amount can be granted for his work as a managerial skill and for that, reliance can be placed on the minimum wages schedule rather than going on assumption of taking into fact of agricultural property and the income from other sources which probably would have continued and there would not have been any major loss to the claimant as could continue to generate income with the assistance of other person. 4. The brief facts as have been noted by the Tribunal with regard to the accident is as under:- On 5.6.2013 at about 15.00 hrs., the applicant was on his bicycle on the left side of the road and was heading towards Harij. As per the facts of the case, when he reached near Laxmi Ginning Cotton, the driver of the car bearing registration no. GJ- 24 K-1860 came driving in full speed in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the car and came on the wrong side of the road and hit the applicant. 5. The claimant was taken to the hospital of Dr. Vimal Gandhi at Patan, where he was treated for fracture humorous at right hand and operated on right leg below knee and also plates were inserted on right hand ulna bone and was operated for intestine puncture and also plates were inserted due to compound fracture on right hand bones and the applicant has remained as an indoor patient for 35 days. 6. At the time of the accident, he was 39 years. The claimant has stated that he was earning income of Rs.9,000/- per month by dong agriculture work by possessing 45 vighas land and was earning income by depositing the milk in the Sarval Dudh Utpadak Sahakri Mandli. 7. The disability certificate was produced at Exh.35 issued by Dr. Vipin Soni, Orthopedic Surgeon, Patan who had considered 70% permanent physical impairment for the right lower limb, 33.50% of right upper limb and the purshis was placed on record considering 50% physical disability for the body as a whole and 100% functional disability. 7. The disability certificate was produced at Exh.35 issued by Dr. Vipin Soni, Orthopedic Surgeon, Patan who had considered 70% permanent physical impairment for the right lower limb, 33.50% of right upper limb and the purshis was placed on record considering 50% physical disability for the body as a whole and 100% functional disability. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 has observed as under:- “11. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to `hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the `just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the ‘just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. If a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. 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 the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. 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 the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage.” 9. As per the facts, the applicant has an amputation of right leg and the learned Tribunal has considered Part-II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and has assessed 50% for the body as a whole, but the fact also has come on record that the claimant was also having injury in the intestine, which is a puncture injury and the 3 plates were inserted in the right hand and thus, the effect was not only in the right leg but on the right hand and intestine. Considering the injury on record as has been noted by the Tribunal, it would be appropriate that 60% functional disability is considered as the claimant being an agriculturist and the person dealing in sale of milk, would not now be in a position to do this work effectively. 10. The income of the claimant is urged for Rs.9,000/-. In support of the said claim, the applicant had produced village form no.7/12 and village form no.8 for 5 survey numbers. The documents were at Exhs.38 to 42, wherein the name of the father of the claimant as observed has been reflected. The affidavit of one Govindbhai Ambaram Prajapati, Secretary of Sarval Dudh Utpadah Sahakri Mandli was produced at Exh.50, where he has referred to the income from the deposit of the milk in the milk society. The statement for a period of 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013 has been produced on record to show that the milk of Rs.62,899.98 has been deposited. The affidavit of one Govindbhai Ambaram Prajapati, Secretary of Sarval Dudh Utpadah Sahakri Mandli was produced at Exh.50, where he has referred to the income from the deposit of the milk in the milk society. The statement for a period of 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013 has been produced on record to show that the milk of Rs.62,899.98 has been deposited. The father of the applicant has stated that he has 3 sons and 2 daughters so the Tribunal has noted that the claimant would have one-sixth share in the agricultural land and keeping this fact into consideration and the fact that he was also earning from deposit of the milk, this Court considers that by taking assistance of minimum wages schedule at Rs.5,300/- per month may be considered as his income. 11. In the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 2023 SC 186 , wherein it was held that socio-economic background of the claimants must be considered while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability and that the persons from marginalized sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination. It was further held that even if the income of the claimant had increased after the accident, it would not be enough grounds to disable him from claiming compensation for future prospect as the rise in income may be attributed to multiple other factors and in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects. It was further held that “Just compensation" must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident took place. 12. Considering the age of the applicant being 35, as observed by the Tribunal, 40% prospective rise in income has to be considered and hence, it would come to Rs.7,420/- (Rs.5,300/- + Rs.2,120/- (40% of Rs.5,300/-) with 60% disability annually applying the multiplier of 15, the future loss of income would come to Rs.8,01,360/- (Rs.7,420/- x 60% x 15 x 12). 13. 13. As noted hereinabove, the applicant had suffered amputation of right leg with platings in the hand and the puncture in the intestine, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering as granted of Rs.50,000/- would be on a lower side. The injury would cause lifelong suffering with pain because of loss of leg and injury in the intestine and hence, the amount is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- for artificial limb, Rs.15,000/- for special diet, attendant and transportation and the actual loss of income has been considered for 3 months and hence, accordingly, now on the basis of the income as noted hereinabove, the actual loss of income would come to Rs.15,900/-. Medical bills are of Rs.1,85,000/- as proved before the Tribunal. Thus, the computation would be as under:- Rs. 8,01,360/- Future loss of income Rs. 1,50,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Artificial limb Rs. 15,000/- Special diet, attendant and transportation Rs. 15,900/- Actual loss of income Rs. 1,85,000/- Medical expenses Rs.12,17,260/- Total compensation 15. As per the facts of the case, the Tribunal has considered 10% negligence of the applicant. Advocate Mr. Gadhia submitted that the observation of the Tribunal of 10% negligence of the claimant as a bicycle rider was proved through the evidence and the Tribunal has kept in mind the fact of the size of the vehicle and type of vehicle involved where the claimant as a cyclist is also found negligent on the road which has contributed to the negligence and hence, stated that the observation of the Tribunal is required to be upheld. 16. This Court finds that the appreciation of the evidence is in accordance to the evidence on record. 10% negligence of the applicant as a cyclist on the road is required to be upheld and to be concurred with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal and hence, considering 10% negligence of the claimant, deducting the amount of Rs.1,21,726/-, the amount which the applicant would be entitled would be Rs.10,95,534/-. 17. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.6,88,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the claimant would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,07,034/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 17. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.6,88,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the claimant would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,07,034/- 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 Court. Let the total amount be given to the claimant on verification of the identity. 18. The impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal, if received.