JUDGMENT : (MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.) 1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 15.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.-V) Ahmedabad [Rural in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1258 of 2007. 2. The parties will be referred as per their original position before the Tribunal. 3. Short facts of the case appear to be as under ; 3.1 That on 23.08.2007, the applicant was going to his service/job on his motorcycle no.GJ-1-DE-3829 at about 10:00 O’clock in the morning. At about 10 am when he was passing near Vaibhav Bunglows, one driver of Qualis Car No. GJ-18-T- 8351 came with full speed, in rash and negligent manner and in violation of the traffic rules dashed with the applicant. The applicant was fallen down from the motorcycle. Resultantly, the applicant got serious fracture on his spinal cord and other bodily injuries. 3.2 The claimant submitted that at the time of accident, he was 28 years old and was healthy and strong and having no vices. It is also submitted that at the time of accident, he was doing service in Intrigue Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs.18,000/- per month therefrom. It is further submitted that due to the alleged accident, he had sustained grievous injuries and due to which he had to take medical treatment in the SAL Hospital. In due course of treatment, he had expended money towards the special diet, medicines, transportation & attendance charges. Moreover, he had also suffered unbearable pain and mental agony due to the injuries. Due to the accidental injuries, a permanent disability is also caused to him and due to which he is not as capable as he was earlier and further he is also facing troubles while performing his routine works and other works. It is submitted that his monthly income also got affected. Therefore, he has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal to get a compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- from the opponents towards the accidental injuries caused to him. 3.3 The claimant and the insurance company has produced following documentary evidence in support of their case:- Sr.No. Description of Documents Exhibit 1. Copy of complaint 73 2. True Copy of Panchnama of place of incident 74 3. Certificate of injury issued by Sal hospital 75 4. 3.3 The claimant and the insurance company has produced following documentary evidence in support of their case:- Sr.No. Description of Documents Exhibit 1. Copy of complaint 73 2. True Copy of Panchnama of place of incident 74 3. Certificate of injury issued by Sal hospital 75 4. Certificate of discharge summary in Sal hospital (dt. 23.8.07 to 12.9.07) 76 5. Certificate of discharge summary in Sal hospital (dt. 13.9.07 to 15.9.07) 77 6. Certificate of discharge summary in Manipal hospital 78 7. Certificate of discharge summary in ST.Philomena's Hospital 79 8. Certificate of ST. Philomena hospital 80 9. Certificate of St. Philomena hospital 81 10. Case papers of Dr. Dipak D. Patel 82 11 Disability certificate 58 12. School Leaving certificate 83 Documents produced by Insurance Company Sr.No. Description of Documents Exhibit 1. Insurance policy of Qualis Car 75 3.4 The original claimant has been examined at Exhibit 31 and in support of claim, he has examined his employer, namely, Jatinkumar Ashvinkumar at Exhibit 52 and Manish Vinodbhai Mistry, his colleague at Exhibit 62 and Dr.Aditya Indulal Upadhyay at Exhibit 67. On the other hand, the insurance company has not led any evidence to disprove the aforesaid evidence of claimant. 3.5 Respondent nos.1 to 4 were served but did not appear before the Tribunal. The Opponent No.3 - insurance company appeared and filed its written statement at Exhibit 19 thereby, contested the claim petition on all counts. 3.6 After appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has found driver of Qualis car 90% negligent and injured claimant 10% contributory negligent for causing accident as both the vehicles were collided head on. So far as granting compensation is concerned, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.23,78,720/-. 3.7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking additional compensation. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT – CLAIMANT 4. Mr Hemal Shah with Mr Shrijit G Pillai, learned advocates appearing for original claimant - appellant would submit that the Tribunal has committed a gross error while considering only Rs.10,000/- per month as income of injured claimant. He would submit that injured claimant was qualified electrical engineer working in Intrigue Technologies Private Limited and earning monthly income of Rs.14,800/- per month at the time of accident. He would submit that injured claimant was qualified electrical engineer working in Intrigue Technologies Private Limited and earning monthly income of Rs.14,800/- per month at the time of accident. He would further submit that claimant has successfully proved income by examining his employer, Mr.Jatinkumar at Exhibit 52 and so also submitted salary slip and offer letter of the said company issued to the claimant on 01.03.2007 quantifying his monthly remuneration of Rs.50,000/- per month. He would further submit that bank statement of said employee would also indicate payment of Rs.15,000/- to the claimant. 4.1 The documentary evidence, which are produced with the list at exhibit 51 would clearly prove that the injured claimant was receiving Rs.14,800 per month (Rs.15,000 - 200 as professional tax) as salary from Intrigue Technologies Private Limited. 4.2 Learned advocate for the appellant would further submit that the Tribunal has erroneously believed income of injured to Rs.10,000/- per month required to be reconsidered by this Court considering documentary evidence submitted by the claimant in support of his claim. 4.3 Learned advocate for the appellant would further submit that Tribunal has committed a gross error in not considering future rise of income even though claimant has sustained serious injuries and ultimately, he become completely disabled from doing anything. He would submit that as per certain legal position of law, the Tribunal was required to consider 50% future prospective rise of income as claimant was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. To buttress his argument, learned advocate Mr Hemal Shah appearing for the claimant, would rely upon the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav. Vs. Nareshkumar reported in 2022 (13) SCC 790 , Sandeep Khanuja v/s. Atul Dande [(2017) 3 SCC 351] and Mohd Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2023 AIR (SC) 186. 4.4 Learned advocate for the appellant would further submit that to prove the disability, the claimant has examined Dr.Aditya, M.Sc.Orthopedics at Ex. 67, who certified that claimant has sustained 95% permanent disability body as a whole. He would further submit that as per disability certificate issued by Government General Hospital, Sola Ahmedabad, quantifying the disability of claimant to the extent of 90%. It is a case of paraplegia whereby lower part of body of claimant is totally non-workable. 67, who certified that claimant has sustained 95% permanent disability body as a whole. He would further submit that as per disability certificate issued by Government General Hospital, Sola Ahmedabad, quantifying the disability of claimant to the extent of 90%. It is a case of paraplegia whereby lower part of body of claimant is totally non-workable. He would submit that despite all the evidence on record and coupled with the fact that deceased was electrical engineer prior to accident and now he is unable to move out of the bed, it would be total disablement i.e., 100% to the claimant. He would submit that Tribunal has committed an error while considering 90% disability as functional disability body as a whole of claimant. According to the submission of learned advocate for the claimant, functional disability of claimant would be 100% instead of 90%. 4.5 Learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company would further submit that considering young age of claimant, i.e., 28 years and keeping in mind his remaining life for which, he has unable to move out of the bed then he has to undergo pain, suffering and trauma for his remaining life. He would then request this Court that at least Rs.4,00,000/- compensation towards pain, shock and suffering ought to have been considered by Tribunal. 4.6 Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant would further submit that as per overall evidence of claimant at Exhibit 31, wherein in para 8, it has clearly mentioned that due to disability received by him, he is not in a position to get married, thereby, he has no chance to live his life. He has then requested this Court to consider granting of loss of marriage prospective including loss of amenities of life and as such, the same may be quantified Rs.3,00,000/- including loss of amenities of life. 4.7 Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant would further submit that the Tribunal has not at all considered oral and documentary evidence led by claimant in support of his claim, especially, attendant charges. He would submit that as per oral evidence of claimant, he is incurring expense of Rs.3,000/- per month towards attendant charges at the time of giving deposition in the year, 2011 and such part of evidence is not controverted by insurance company. He would submit that as per oral evidence of claimant, he is incurring expense of Rs.3,000/- per month towards attendant charges at the time of giving deposition in the year, 2011 and such part of evidence is not controverted by insurance company. He would further submit that considering precarious condition of the claimant, he would be entitled to receive attendant charges and be properly awarded compensation under such head. He would further request that claimant is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses as his condition is such that he needs to change catheter at regular intervals. 4.8 Thus, in view of the aforesaid submissions, he would request this Court to allow the present appeal filed at the instance of claimant. SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY 5. Par Contra, Mr V.C. Thomas, learned advocate appearing for the insurance company has submitted that there is no error committed by Tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimant. He would submit that Tribunal has granted a very liberal and just compensation, which does not require any interference by this Court. 5.1 Learned advocate appearing for the insurance company would further submit that Tribunal has considered potentiality of earning of claimant, thereby, awarded future loss of income. He would further submit when the disability certificate issued by government hospital quantifying disability of claimant of 90% then there is no error committed by Tribunal in considering such percentage of disability body as a whole being functional disability. 5.2 Learned advocate appearing for the insurance company would lastly submit that if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is a total disablement i.e., 100% then as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar versus Ajay Kumar and Anr., reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 , no amount separately to be awarded towards loss of amenities of life. Nonetheless, he would fairly submit that considering precarious condition of claimant, appropriate amount may be awarded towards pain, shock and suffering and other pecuniary conventional heads. Further, he would submit that in absence of any proof of payment charges to the attendant, claimant would not be entitled to any attendant charges as claimed. 6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and gone through the records and proceedings produced before this Court. No other submissions are made. Point Of Determination 7. Further, he would submit that in absence of any proof of payment charges to the attendant, claimant would not be entitled to any attendant charges as claimed. 6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and gone through the records and proceedings produced before this Court. No other submissions are made. Point Of Determination 7. The following points of determination are considered, which are as under:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed any error while granting compensation? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, claimant would be entitled to receive any additional compensation? APPRECIATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND FINDINGS 8. We have examined the case in detail and also minutely gone through oral and documentary evidence available on record. It remains undisputed before the Tribunal and to this Court that injured claimant has sustained very serious injuries resulted into loss of power of his both lower limb. It is a case of paraplegia. The disability certificate issued by the Doctor and certified by him through his oral evidence quantified disability of 95% body as a whole. Even the disability certificate issued by the government hospital would also quantified disability as 90% body as a whole. The oral evidence of claimant and photographs, which are on record, would clearly indicate that injured claimant was confined to bed due to paraplegia. 9. After examining the fact and reappreciating the evidence on record, wherein after accident, the claimant has sustained very serious injuries that crippled him and unable him to do anything without any support. The medical evidence would support the case of claimant. The condition of claimant has never improved during course of trial before the Tribunal. 10. So keeping all these factors into account and re appreciating the evidence on record, we are of the view that it would be 100% functional loss caused to the claimant due to the accidental injuries sustained by him. To that extent, we are of the view that Tribunal has committed serious error in considering only 90% functional disability when the claimant is unable to move out of the bed and requires helper to complete his routine. Hence, question of getting employment or engaging himself in any other employment would be out of place. 11. To that extent, we are of the view that Tribunal has committed serious error in considering only 90% functional disability when the claimant is unable to move out of the bed and requires helper to complete his routine. Hence, question of getting employment or engaging himself in any other employment would be out of place. 11. This, in view of the aforesaid evidence on record, we are of the view that claimant has sustained permanent total disablement i.e., 100%. 12. We would further like to observe that Tribunal has not discussed the evidence in detail and decided the claim petition in a very cursory manner without appreciating and discussing evidence on record in detail, especially, when claimant has received very serious injuries and due to which he become paraplegic. He was very young at the time of accident and now requires help and care all throughout his life. The Tribunal is required to consider several factors while granting compensation in a serious injury cases, which are so lucidly discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj kumar (supra), wherein it has been held as under:- “5 The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries, (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of Prospects of marriage.) (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/ or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii)- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damagesitems (iv), (v) and (vi) -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. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability. 6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.” 13. Even in recent past also, after revisiting the case law in granting adequate compensation to road accident victim having sustained very serious injuries, thereby, disabled him for doing anything, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India succinctly held in the case of Sidram versus United India Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2023 (3) SCC 439 , wherein it has been held thus:- “113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant ” affront to the injured victim. 14. We would like to observe that documentary evidence so led by claimant in the form of his salary slip, bank statement of employer, his appointment letter as well as oral evidence of his employer and his colleague would prove that injured claimant was used to receive Rs.15,000/- per month as a salary and after deducting professional tax of Rs.200/-, he used to receive net salary of Rs.14,800/-. 15. The Tribunal has, without discussing such evidence on record, erroneously considered his income as Rs.10,000/- per month when the claimant has proved his income on record by examining his employer and through documentary evidence which was not disproved by insurance company by leading any contrary evidence. The Tribunal was not justified in considering only Rs.10,000/- per month as income of injured claimant. 16. Now, it is well settled legal position of law that in a case of serious injuries, which has resulted into permanent disablement of claimant, the future perspective rise of income requires to be considered by Tribunal while awarding future loss of income. 17. Learned advocate Mr Shah has correctly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav. 17. Learned advocate Mr Shah has correctly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav. (supra), wherein it has been held as under:- “[7] Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi (Supra n.2) involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish (Supra n.3) was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant (Supra n.6) to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi (Supra n.2) is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death. [12] In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi principle).” 18. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of Mohd Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (supra), which reads as under:-. “[14] To assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded, this Court has to assess whether the permanent disability caused has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the Appellant, as held by this Court in the case of Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande and Anr., 2017 3 SCC 351 . “[14] To assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded, this Court has to assess whether the permanent disability caused has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the Appellant, as held by this Court in the case of Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande and Anr., 2017 3 SCC 351 . The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereunder :- "The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration thus is to assess whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. We feel that the con- clusion of the MACT on the application of aforesaid test is erro- neous. A very myopic view is taken by the MACT in taking the view that 70% permanent disability suffered by the appellant would not impact the earning capacity of the appellant. The MACT thought that since the appellant is a chartered accountant he is supposed to do sitting work and therefore his working capacity is not impaired.... A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily able. Move- ments of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age." [18] It is a well settled position of law that 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 has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances 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.” 19. He has also relied upon the decision of Sandeep Khanuja (supra), wherein it has been held as under:- “[14] In the last few years, law in this aspect has been straightened by this Court by removing certain cobwebs that had been created because of some divergent views on certain aspects. It is not even necessary to refer to all these cases. It is not even necessary to refer to all these cases. We find that the principle of determination of compensation in the case of permanent/partial disablement has been exhaustively dealt with after referring to the relevant case law on the subject in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Ors, 2011 1 SCC 343 in the following words: "Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability 10. 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 and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation." [15] The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration, thus, is to assess as to whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. In this sense, the MACT approached the issue in right direction by taking into consideration the aforesaid test. However, we feel that the conclusion of the MACT, on the application of the aforesaid test, is erroneous. A very myopic view is taken by the MACT in taking the view that 70% permanent disability suffered by the appellant would not impact the earning capacity of the appellant. The MACT thought that since the appellant is a Chartered Accountant, he is supposed to do sitting work and, therefore, his working capacity is not impaired. Such a conclusion was justified if the appellant was in the employment where job requirement could be to do sitting/table work and receive monthly salary for the said work. An important feature and aspect which is ignored by the MACT is that the appellant is a professional Chartered Accountant. To do this work efficiently and in order to augment his income, a Chartered Accountant is supposed to move around as well. If a Chartered Accountant is doing taxation work, he has to appear before the assessing authorities and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act, as a Chartered Accountant is allowed to practice up to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Many times Chartered Accountants are supposed to visit their clients as well. In case a Chartered Accountant is primarily doing audit work, he is not only required to visit his clients but various authorities as well. There are many statutory functions under various statutes which the Chartered Accountants perform. Free movement is involved for performance of such functions. A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily abled. There are many statutory functions under various statutes which the Chartered Accountants perform. Free movement is involved for performance of such functions. A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily abled. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age.Though the High Court recognised this, it did not go forward to apply the principle of multiplier. We are of the opinion that in a case like this and having regard to the injuries suffered by the appellant, there is a definite loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of compensation with the adoption of multiplier method, as held by this Court in Yadava Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr, 2010 10 SCC 341 : "9. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. 10. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of lifetime's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases and that is now recognised mode as to the proper measure of compensation is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand." 20. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, we are inclined to consider 50% future prospective rise of income of injured payment while computing future loss of income. 21. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, we are inclined to consider 50% future prospective rise of income of injured payment while computing future loss of income. 21. The claimant has sustained very serious injuries, which has resulted into 100% disability and it is a case of paraplegia of a young claimant, who has sustained these injuries at the age of 28 years and to have live along life with this precarious condition, we are inclined to accept the submission of learned advocate for the claimant thereby avoiding Rs.4,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and likewise due to disability and the injury sustained to the claimant, he is not in a position to get married then as per legal position of law, he would entitle to Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospect including amenities of life (See 2022 (17) SCC 51 ). 22. At this stage, we would like to consider submission made by learned advocate of insurance company that when the Court is considering loss of futures perspective of earning capacity as 100% of injured claimant then no amount towards loss of amenities to be granted. It is true that as per the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj kumar (supra) it has been so observed thus:- “15. 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 the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may." 23. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement as a token of compensation towards loss of amenities of life, we have awarded the aforesaid amount which includes loss of marriage prospective. 24. The claimant has specifically come out with his case that due to disability, he needs attendant, who can help him to perform routine activity and he used to pay Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of his deposition recorded in the year 2011. This part of oral evidence went uncontroverted in his cross examination. 24. The claimant has specifically come out with his case that due to disability, he needs attendant, who can help him to perform routine activity and he used to pay Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of his deposition recorded in the year 2011. This part of oral evidence went uncontroverted in his cross examination. Be that as it may, considering the physical condition of claimant and a case of paraplegia, where there is no sign of improvement after taking long medical treatment, we are of the view that claimant needs daily assistance and require attendant for which, he is required to be compensated. Keeping all these factors into account and year of accident i.e., 2007, Minimum wages prevailing and in absence of any actual proof of payment to the attendant by the claimant, we are considering Rs.2,500/- per month as attendant charges and amounting it by multiplier of 17 as per the age of injured claimant. 25. The claimant has incurred of Rs.5,66,320/-, which is already awarded. Nonetheless, no amount towards future medical expenses has been awarded by the Tribunal. 26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and medical evidence available on record, we are of the view that Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expense can be awarded as prayed for by the learned advocate of the claimant. When we are considering total disablement of injured claimant then in view of the fact, no award towards actual loss of income is required to be considered. 27. Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid reasons and findings, the claimant would entitle to receive compensation as follows Monthly income Rs.14,800/- 50% prospective rise Rs.7,400/- Total Monthly income Rs.22,200/- Annual Income Rs.2,66,400/- Considering the age of deceased as 28 years - Multiplier 17 Future loss of income Rs.45,28,800/- Pain, Shock and suffering Rs.4,00,000/- Loss of marriage prospect including loss of amenities Rs.3,00,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.5,66,320/- Future Medical Expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Attendant, Special Diet and Transportation Charges etc. [2500 X 12 X 17] Rs.5,10,000/- Total compensation Rs. 64,05,120/- 10% Contributory Negligency - Rs.6,40,512/- Compensation already awarded by the Tribunal Rs.23,78,720/- Excess compensation with 7.5%interest Rs.33,85,888/- CONCLUSION 28. In view of the aforesaid stated facts and circumstances of the case, discussions, reasons and our findings, we are of the view that claimant is entitled to receive an additional compensation of Rs.33,85,888/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till realization. In view of the aforesaid stated facts and circumstances of the case, discussions, reasons and our findings, we are of the view that claimant is entitled to receive an additional compensation of Rs.33,85,888/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till realization. 28.1 The insurance company shall deposit the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, which shall be paid to the claimant through RTGS/NEFT or any other banking mode on proper verification in accordance with law. 28.2 The present appeal is allowed to aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 28.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.