JUDGMENT

Sunil K.Kotwal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ahmednagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 125 of 2013 by the claimant. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent no.2 is the insurer Insurance Company.

2. Undisputedly, on 20.11.2012 the claimant, who was about 26 years old young person, was riding the motor cycle No. MH16/AF-1741, from Sarola Kasar to Ahmednagar by Nagar Daund road. One friend of claimant, namely Vijay Dhole was the pillion rider. At about 8.00 a.m. Maruti Car No. MH19/BJ-2288 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the offending vehicle'') came from Ahmednagar side and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant.

3. Contention of the claimant is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the offending vehicle. In that accident, claimant sustained severe head injury and fracture injury, which resulted into his permanent disablement. Therefore, claimant filed Claim Petition for recovery of compensation of Rs. 40 Lacs.

4. Heard strenuous arguments submitted by Shri D.R.Markad, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri R.B.Temak, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri S. G.Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal is preferred only for enhancement of compensation and no Cross-objection or Cross appeal is filed by any of the respondents. In view of the submissions of the parties, in this appeal, the discussion will be restricted only with the quantum of compensation amount.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though after the accident from 20.11.2012 to 28.1.2013 the claimant was hospitalized in various Hospitals for medical treatment and fracture of bone treatment, the Tribunal did not award compensation for this period under the head "actual loss of income". His next submission is that the loss of future income is erroneously calculated by the Tribunal by considering only monthly income of the claimant as multiplicand. He submits that the Tribunal should have considered total annual income of the claimant and thereafter should have applied the multiplier to ascertain correct sum of loss of future income.

7. Next limb of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that due to permanent disability the claimant has lost 100 per cent earning capacity. That needs to be taken into consideration. He also submits that 40 per cent income is to be added under the head "loss of future prospects" in view of recent verdict in the case of " National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others" [(2017) 16 SCC 680] . He submits that the Tribunal should have awarded compensation under various heads i.e. damages for loss of amenities in future life, for loss of expectation of life, inconvenience and mental stress in life. He placed reliance on " Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (AIR 2013 SC 3429).

8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 fairly concedes that annual income of the claimant should have been considered by the Tribunal while assessing the loss of future income of the claimant. However, his objection is that monthly income of the claimant is not duly proved, as the witness examined by the claimant has not brought on record documentary evidence to prove monthly income of the claimant or to prove his own authenticity to depose on behalf of the employer of the claimant.

9. His next objection is that Dr. Pandit (PW 2) examined by claimant is not Neuro Surgeon and his evidence is of no value to prove 100 per cent disability of the claimant.

10. It is not disputed in between the parties that in the case of Motor Accident Claim Petition, "claims for injury", the compensation is to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages, as ruled by the Apex Court in the case of Rekha Jain (supra). The pecuniary damages are those which are actually incurred and which is c