JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as these arise from the same Award. 2. On 8.5.2012 at about 5.15 PM an accident involving two motor vehicles i.e. motorcycle No. HP-40B- 2052 and Jeep No. HP-54-0818 took place at place Pir-Bindli, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. 3. Om Parkash, appellant in FAO No. 114 of 2019 was riding the motorcycle. He suffered injuries in the said accident. 4. Om Parkash (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which came to be registered as MACP No. (RBT) 36-K/II/13/14 in the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Kangra at Dharmshala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). 5. As per claimant, his motorcycle was hit by Jeep No. HP-54-0818 and as a result of which, his right leg was crushed.It was alleged that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep No.HP-54-0818. 6. FIR No. 36 of 2012 dated 8.5.2012 was registered at Police Station, Haripur, District Kangra. 7. The claimant allegedly sustained grievous injuries. As per claimant, he had remained as indoor patient from 8.5.2012 to 11.5.2012 in Dr. RPGMC, Kangra at Tanda; from 12.5.2012 to 22.5.2012 in DMC Ludhiana and thereafter from 23.5.2012 to 22.6.2012 again in Dr. RPGMC, Kangra at Tanda. It was claimed that due to crush injuries, the right leg of claimant was amputated causing permanent disablement. He was being attended regularly by his wife and another person, who was being paid Rs. 3000/- per month. The claimant further alleged that due to amputation of leg, he was not able to work. 8. The claimant alleged that he was earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month and was leading happy life with his family. Claimant was allegedly working as a Mason and in addition, he was providing shuttering and concrete mixer on hire for construction of buildings. 9. On such assertions, a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-was claimed as compensation. 10. The owner of Jeep No. HP-54-0818 was impleaded as respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘owner’). Driver Sameer Sharma was impleaded as respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘driver’) and the National Insurance Company was impleaded as respondent No.3 insurer of the Jeep (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’). 11. 35,00,000/-was claimed as compensation. 10. The owner of Jeep No. HP-54-0818 was impleaded as respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘owner’). Driver Sameer Sharma was impleaded as respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘driver’) and the National Insurance Company was impleaded as respondent No.3 insurer of the Jeep (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’). 11. The owner and driver filed their joint reply. The allegation with respect to rash and negligent driving of the driver being cause of accident was specifically denied. As a counter, it was alleged that the claimant himself was negligent while riding the motorcycle. It was contended that the road was narrow and the claimant was riding the motorcycle in high speed. When he saw the jeep driven by the respondent coming from opposite directions, he got perplexed and resultantly fell on the road. It was further stated that the jeep driven by respondent No.2 had not even touched the motorcycle of claimant. It was also denied that the income of the petitioner was about 25,000/- per month. As per owner and driver, the claimant was earning Rs. 250/- per day as wages that too for a few days in a month. The plea of the claimant that he was supplying shuttering material and mixer machine was also denied. 12. The insurer filed its reply. It was alleged that the driver was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. The petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle. Rest of the contents of the petition were also denied generally. 13. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- “i) Whether the petitioner had suffered multiple injuries in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No. HP-54- 0818 by respondent No.2 on 8.5.2012 at about 5.15. p.m. at Peerbindli? OPP ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP iii) Whether respondent No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the jeep? OPR iv) Whether the petition is bad for non joining of owner and driver of motorcycle No. HP-40-B- 2952. v) Relief.” 14. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and a sum of Rs. OPP iii) Whether respondent No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the jeep? OPR iv) Whether the petition is bad for non joining of owner and driver of motorcycle No. HP-40-B- 2952. v) Relief.” 14. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and a sum of Rs. 28,96,133/- has been awarded to the claimant in different heads as under:- 1. Compensation on account of pain and sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs. 1,81,133/- 3. Future medical treatment expenses. Rs. 1,25,000/- 4. Loss of future amenities and expectation of life Rs. 1,25,000/- 5. Compensation on account of conveyance and food nourishment expenses Rs. 1,25,000/- 6. Compensation for loss of income Rs. 14,40,000/- 7. Compensation on account of indoor patient Rs. 2,00,000/- 8. Compensation on account of disability Rs. 5,00,000/ 15. The insurer has assailed the impugned award by way of FAO No. 125 of 2017. At the time of hearing of the appeals, learned Senior Counsel representing the insurer has raised two contentions; firstly, that the rashness and negligence on part of driver being cause of accident was not proved and secondly, the compensation awarded was exorbitant and too high. 16. On the other hand, the claimant has filed FAO No. 114 of 2019, seeking enhancement of compensation. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 18. The first contention of the insurer that the rash and negligent driving of the driver was not proved, needs to be rejected. The claimant while appearing as PW-3 had clearly narrated the manner in which the accident had taken place. His version was that he was riding his motorcycle in slow speed. The driver came driving the jeep No.HP-54-0818 from opposite directions in high speed and negligently hit the motorcycle of the claimant. It resulted in fall of motorcycle along with the claimant on the road and consequent injuries on the leg and foot of the claimant. He submitted that immediately thereafter few people had gathered on the spot. He named Vipan Kumar to be one of them. The said Vipan Kumar has also been examined as PW-4, who corroborated the statement of the claimant by stating that he was walking on road towards the house of his sister near Village Pirbindli. He noticed the motorcycle of the claimant being hit by Jeep No. HP-54-0818. He named Vipan Kumar to be one of them. The said Vipan Kumar has also been examined as PW-4, who corroborated the statement of the claimant by stating that he was walking on road towards the house of his sister near Village Pirbindli. He noticed the motorcycle of the claimant being hit by Jeep No. HP-54-0818. As per this witness also, the jeep was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the version in the FIR is also to the same effect. On the other hand, though the driver has examined himself as RW-2 but his version has remained uncorroborated. Even from the detailed cross- examinations of PW-3 and PW-4, nothing material could be elicited. Thus, no fault can be found with the findings returned by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. 19. Next, the issue is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the year 2012, the wages of skilled workmen fixed under the Minimum Wages Act in the State of Himachal Pradesh were Rs. 188.98. Since, the income of claimant was not documented, the wages so fixed under the Minimum Wages Act should be applied as standard for assessment of the earning of claimant. He further submitted that there was no evidence to the effect that the claimant was either the owner of shuttering material and mixer machine or had been letting such material or machine on hire. He made reference to the document Ext. PD, a copy of Pariwar Register wherein the occupation of the claimant was mentioned as agriculture. 20. He further contended that the award of compensation for future medical expenses is unsustainable, as there was no evidence to suggest such a hypothesis. He also submitted that the award of compensation on account of disability could not be different than the compensation awarded as loss of income. 21. The learned counsel for claimant on the other hand would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income on lesser side whereas the claimant was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month from his wages. 22. In order to appreciate rival contentions, it will be relevant to take note of the fact that the date of birth of the claimant as mentioned in Pariwar Register Ext. 25,000/- per month from his wages. 22. In order to appreciate rival contentions, it will be relevant to take note of the fact that the date of birth of the claimant as mentioned in Pariwar Register Ext. PD is 28.6.1954. The accident had taken place on 8.5.2012, hence the claimant at the time of accident was aged 57 years. Further, what has been established on record is that the claimant was working as a Mason. His statement to that effect is corroborated by RW-4 Vipan Kumar. Even the owner and driver had not denied this fact. 23. The claimant has not placed on record any tangible material to prove that he owned shuttering material and mixer machine. Neither any family member of the claimant nor any of his customer or client has been examined as witness. Though PW-4 Vipan Kumar has tried to support the claimant but much reliance cannot be placed on his testimony for the reason that the claimant had failed to produce best evidence. Further, PW-4 was not even a resident of the same village to which the claimant belonged. Rather, he hailed from a place which was at a distance of 4-5 KMs. 24. Thus, in such circumstances, the Court is left with no other option but to make some guesswork on realistic and objective parameters. The wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act can only be taken as a guiding factor and not as the sole criteria. In the instant case, the claimant has claimed his daily wages as Mason between Rs. 500 to 600/-, on the other hand as per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act daily wages for a skilled workman at the relevant time was Rs. 188.98. Noticeably, the wages under the Minimum Wages Act are for specific hours in a day. Normally, the workman working privately works overtime and his wages are otherwise higher than the fixed minimum wages. In such circumstances, it can be reasonably assessed that the claimant would be earning Rs. 300/- per day on an average and, therefore, his monthly income would be approximately Rs. 9000/-. Since the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, he would also be entitled to loss of income on account of future prospects, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & others, AIR 2020 SC 4424 . 300/- per day on an average and, therefore, his monthly income would be approximately Rs. 9000/-. Since the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, he would also be entitled to loss of income on account of future prospects, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & others, AIR 2020 SC 4424 . As noticed above, the claimant was aged 57 years at the time of suffering injuries, therefore, he would be entitled to addition of 10% of monthly wage towards loss of future prospects. Thus, his monthly income can be assessed at Rs. 9,900/- instead of Rs. 15,000/- per month as assessed by learned Tribunal. 25. The learned Tribunal has assessed the loss of income in respect of claimant to the extent of 100%. The disability certificate produced by the claimant mentions his disability to the tune of 70%. PW-1 Dr. Gurdarshan Gupta has proved disability certificate Ext. PW1/A. This witness deposed that the disability would affect the working capacity for any hard manual work. Thus, in my considered view, the assessment of functional disability of petitioner to the extent of 100% is justified. His loss of earning capacity can reasonably be said to have been taken away as the claimant cannot be expected to work as Mason with amputated leg. The learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 8 and hence total loss of income can be assessed at Rs. 9,900 x 12 x 8 = 9,50,400/-. 26. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar& another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the following heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases:- “6. ……… 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). (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. 7. 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 damages - items (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.” 27. The loss of earning in case of claimant has been assessed by using minimum multiplier as the age of claimant was 57 years and it cannot be ignored that with the advancement of age, the working capacity of a workman indulging in manual labour would normally be reduced. 28. The claimant had produced the bills of expenses of medicines and medical tests etc. to the tune of Rs. 1,81,133/- and the same has been awarded to him under the head of medical expenses. In addition, the learned Tribunal has held that the claimant had remained hospitalized for fifty days and during this period, he must have required services of an attendant round the clock. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on this count by multiplying Rs. 4000x50. In addition, the learned Tribunal has held that the claimant had remained hospitalized for fifty days and during this period, he must have required services of an attendant round the clock. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on this count by multiplying Rs. 4000x50. The learned Tribunal has considered the amount of Rs. 4000/- as reasonable amount having been paid by the claimant to the attendant. No doubt, the claimant would have required the attendant throughout the period of his hospitalization. To say that it would have costed Rs. 4000/- per day appears to be on higher side. Normally one attendant is required to stay in the hospital with the patient. Assuming that there was more than one attendant and had to stay outside, a sum of Rs. 1000/-per day can be reasonable expenditure for such purpose and further even for two attendants, the food bill by reasonable approximation cannot be more than Rs. 1000/- per day. On this analysis, the award can reasonably be Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 29. The amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- awarded to the claimant under the head of future medical treatment and expenses also needs to be interfered with for the reason that there is no iota of evidence on record to suggest that the claimant would be requiring medical expenditure on account of disability suffered by him in future. Neither the claimant had stated so nor any medical evidence has been produced in support of such version. Thus, under this head no compensation can be awarded to the claimant. 30. Similarly, the compensation on account of disability is wholly unjustified. The reliance placed by the learned Tribunal on Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & another, AIR 2014 SC 736 is without justification as in the said case, the assessment was being made in respect of a child, who had suffered disability in a motor vehicle accident. Here in the case of claimant, he separately has been awarded compensation on account of loss of future income which also has resulted from the disability suffered by him and hence under this head, he cannot be compensated again. 31. In light of above discussion, the claimant is held entitled to compensation under following heads: - 1. Loss of income Rs. 9,50,400/- 2. Compensation on account of pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- 3. 31. In light of above discussion, the claimant is held entitled to compensation under following heads: - 1. Loss of income Rs. 9,50,400/- 2. Compensation on account of pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 1,81,133/- 4. Compensation on account of conveyance and special diet Rs. 1,25,000/- 5. Compensation on account of expenses of attendant Rs. 1,00,000/- 6 Loss of future amenities Rs. 1,25,000/- 7. Total Rs.16,81,533/- 32. In addition, the claimant shall also be entitled interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till actual realization of the award amount, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 33. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. The impugned award dated 23.8.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1) Kangra at Dharmshala in MACP No (RBT) 36-K/II/13/14 shall stand modified to the above effect. All miscellaneous pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.