JUDGMENT : Mool Chand Tyagi, J. 1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.10.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Fastrack Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, in M.A.C.P. No. 528 of 2003, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation. 2. The succinct facts as per the Claim Petition, which lead to the filing of the captioned appeal are summarized as under :- i. On 05.01.2003, the appellant herein was travelling in the truck bearing Registration No. GJ-18-T-2091 as a conductor/cleaner. While returning to Jetalpur, the respondent No.1- driver of the said truck was driving the truck at an excessive speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and when the said truck was passing through the sim of Kenral village on National Highway No.8, another truck which was going ahead of the truck driven by respondent No.1 slowed down, and the respondent No.1 could not control the truck in which the appellant herein was sitting as a conductor/cleaner. Resultantly, the truck driven by respondent No.1 dashed with the rear portion of the other truck which was going ahead. In the said vehicular accident, the appellant herein sustained serious multiple fractures on his right leg and also sustained injuries on the other parts of the body. The appellant was immediately shifted to L.G. Hospital and thereafter to V.S. Hospital and was treated as an indoor patient from 05.01.2003 to 28.02.2003. On 20.01.2003, surgery was conducted on the appellant’s right leg and his leg was amputated below the knee and thereafter on 02.02.2003, operation for plastic surgery was conducted. ii. It is also the case of the appellant that at the time of the accident, the appellant was drawing a salary of Rs.1,500/- and he was also getting additional allowance of Rs.1,500/- and therefore, the monthly salary at the time of the accident would be Rs.3,000/-. It is also the case of the appellant that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 30 years and due to injury sustained in the accident, he could not lead a normal life. It is also the case of the appellant that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 30 years and due to injury sustained in the accident, he could not lead a normal life. Therefore, he preferred the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. iii.Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petition, the respondent No. 3 – Insurance Company filed Exh.16 – Written Statement, thereby, denying the averments made in the claim petition and in brief, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. iv.Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.20, for determination. i. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained injuries because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident ? ii. Whether the Petitioner proves that he is entitled to get compensation or any part thereof from the opponents or any of them? iii.What order ? v. In order to prove his claim, the appellant herein led oral as well as documentary evidences, such as:- Sr. No. Description of documents. Exh. No. 1 Affidavit in examination in chief of Claimant and cross examination 23 2 Copy of complaint made to the police 24 3 Panchnama of the place of accident 25 4 OPD book of treatment of appellant 26 5 Injury Certificate 27 6 Medical Bills 28 7 Disability pursis 29 8 Disability Certificate 30 9 Charge-sheet 34 vi. As transpires from the records, the respondent no.3 - Insurance Company has not led any oral or documentary evidences, except the copy of Insurance Policy (Exh. 41). vii. Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidences on record, and having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation. viii. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award, the original Claimant/appellant herein preferred the present appeal on the point of quantum. 3. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 4. Mr. viii. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award, the original Claimant/appellant herein preferred the present appeal on the point of quantum. 3. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 4. Mr. Neeraj J Vasu, learned counsel for the original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted that it is an undisputed fact that at the time of the accident, the appellant was working as a conductor/cleaner on the truck and was earning Rs.3,000 per month, but the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the appellant at the time of accident as Rs.2,000/- per month, which is lesser than the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. He further submitted that the appellant herein could prove the income on record, therefore, the learned Tribunal could have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident as the notional income of the appellant, but the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-, which is much lesser that the rate of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time. At the time of accident, as per the notification issue by the State Government of Gujarat for a semi-skilled worker, the minimum wages was fixed at Rs.2,200/-. Therefore, the learned Tribunal could have considered the notional income of the appellant as Rs.2,200/- per month. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 30 years and he sustained grievous injuries of fracture and underwent 3 surgical operations on his leg and resultantly, his right leg was amputated below the knee. The learned Tribunal has considered the permanent disability of the body as a whole at 37.5%, therefore, the learned Tribunal could have added 40% of the notional income on account of the future prospects of the appellant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in [2022 SCC Online SC 1701]. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- under the head of future loss of income, therefore, the same is required to be enhanced. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in [2022 SCC Online SC 1701]. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- under the head of future loss of income, therefore, the same is required to be enhanced. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of Pain, Shock and Sufferings and a meagre amout of Rs.10,000/- under the head of Special diet, transportation and attendance charges. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities. Further, the learned Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation under the head of Artificial Limb. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra). He further submitted that in all these heads, the learned Tribunal could have awarded just compensation to the appellant, but the learned Tribunal has miserably failed to award just compensation under these heads. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is required to be modified to that extent. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month, as the income was not proved on record. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation under the heads of Pain, Shock and Sufferings and Special diet, transportation and attendance charges and other heads. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation under the heads of Artificial Limb and loss of amenities. He contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award and therefore the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is to be noted that there is no dispute regarding the age and the multiplier awarded by the learned Tribunal. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is to be noted that there is no dispute regarding the age and the multiplier awarded by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the income on the ground that the learned Tribunal has determined the income of the appellant at a rate which is much lower than the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. The accident took place on 05.01.2003. The State Government of Gujarat had notified the minimum wages for semi-skilled worker for the relevant point of time as Rs.2,200/-. Therefore, the learned Tribunal could have considered the minimum wages for determining the income of the appellant, but the learned Tribunal had not considered the minimum wages for awarding the future loss of income. In my considered view, the learned Counsel has committed serious illegality in not considering the minimum wages for determining the monthly notional income of the appellant and accordingly, the monthly income of the appellant is determined as Rs.2,200/-, as the same was the minimum wages for a semi-skilled worker at the relevant point of time. 8. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures on his right leg and resultantly his right leg was amputated below the knee. The medical evidences on record further establishes that he underwent three surgeries on his right leg. The Injury Certificate and Disability Certificate further establishes on record that the appellant sustained permanent disability of 37.5% body as a whole. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra) and in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 3104 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the said notional income of the claimant ought to have been increased by 40% on account of the future prospects. Therefore, after adding 40% to the notional monthly income of the appellant, the income would come to the tune of Rs.3,080/- (i.e., Rs.2,200/- +Rs.880/- (40% of Rs.2,200/-)) per month. 9. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the said notional income of the claimant ought to have been increased by 40% on account of the future prospects. Therefore, after adding 40% to the notional monthly income of the appellant, the income would come to the tune of Rs.3,080/- (i.e., Rs.2,200/- +Rs.880/- (40% of Rs.2,200/-)) per month. 9. Further, the learned Tribunal has determined the functional disability to the extent of 37.5% body as a whole, therefore, the appellant would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,35,620/- (i.e., Rs.3,080/- X 37.5% X 12 X multiplier of “17”). 10. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of Pain, Shock and Sufferings. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra), the compensation awarded under the head of Pain, Shock and Sufferings is liable to be enhanced. It is on record that the right leg of the appellant was amputed and he underwent three surgeries for the same and remained hospitalized for a long period, therefore, it would be just and proper if a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded under the head of Pain, Shock and Sufferings. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under head of Pain, Shock and Sufferings is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. 11. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of amenities. It is on record that after amputation of his right leg below the knee, the appellant is unable to lead a normal life and he is suffering from permanent disabilities. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Mohd. Sabeer (supra), a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is hereby awarded under the head of loss of amenities. 12. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of Special diet, transportation and attendance charges, though, the appellant remained hospitalized as an indoor patient with effect from 05.01.2003 till 28.02.2003. Therefore, it would be just and proper if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of Special diet, transportation and attendance charges and accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of Special diet, transportation and attendance charges is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. 13. The learned Tribunal has awarded the actual loss of income for six months. 13. The learned Tribunal has awarded the actual loss of income for six months. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.18,480/- (i.e., Rs.3,080 X 6) and therefore, the compensation awarded under this head is enhanced to Rs.18,480/-. 14, Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of medical expenses. The said amount has been awarded on the basis of the medical bill proved at Exh.38, therefore, no interference is required under this head. 15. It is on record that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of Artificial Limb though it is on record that the right leg of the appellant was amputated below the knee and thereafter he was operated for plastic surgery on 02.02.2023. On account on this, the appellant has sustained functional disability to the extend of 37.5% body as a whole. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra), a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded under this head of Artificial limp. 16. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the appellant herein shall be entitled for the compensation under the following heads. Sr. No. Head Amount in rupees 1 Future loss of income 2,35,620/- 2 Pain, shock & sufferings. (+) 2,00,000/- 3 Loss of amenities (+) 2,00,000/- 4 Special Diet, Transportation and Attendance Charges. (+) 50,000/- 5 Medical Expenses (+) 20,000/- 6 Actual loss of Income (for 6 months) (+) 18,480/- 7 Artificial Limb (+) 5,00,000/- 8 Total Compensation 12,24,100/- 17. Originally, the original Claimant/appellant herein has filed the Claim Petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-. However, this Court has awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,24,100/-. It is settled preposition of law in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. , reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 , that the Tribunal/Court has to award the just compensation, which can be more than that as claimed by the claimant/appellant. Thus, in view of these discussions, the appellant herein shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,24,100/-. The learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 14.10.2009 has awarded a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- as compensation. Therefore, the appellant shall be entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.9,89,100/- (i.e., Rs.12,24,100/- - Rs.2,35,000/-). Thus, in view of these discussions, the appellant herein shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,24,100/-. The learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 14.10.2009 has awarded a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- as compensation. Therefore, the appellant shall be entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.9,89,100/- (i.e., Rs.12,24,100/- - Rs.2,35,000/-). The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The said rate of interest is not interfered with and the same is maintained. Therefore, the appellant herein shall be entitled for the same rate of interest per annum on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim Petition till realization. 18. In view of the above discussions, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent and accordingly, the captioned appeal stands allowed. 19. The respondent no.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest within a period of six weeks from the today. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation (excluding deficit Court fee, if any) to the appellant herein, after due verification. 20. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs. 21. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.