ORDER :

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the M.V. Act” for short), in which, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 10.07.20219 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surat, passed in MACP No.125 of 2007 to a limited extent i.e. for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hiren M. Modi appearing for the appellant – original claimant and learned advocate Ms.Kirti S. Pathak for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:

3.1 On 08.01.2007, at about 5:30 PM, the claimant was going towards Piplod by driving motorcycle on left side of the road in slow speed and when he reached near Kirti Lazer Beauty, on Piplod – Dumas Road, at that time, respondent No.1 came from behind driving Hyundai Gets car No.GJ-5-CF-83 in full speed, in rash and negligent manner, endangering the human life and dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant and, therefore, the claimant fell down from the motorcycle and sustained serious injuries. The claimant, therefore, has filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal and the respondent No.3 Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.25/A.

3.2 The Claims Tribunal, after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, passed the judgment and award dated 10.07.2018 awarding compensation of Rs.1,33,600/- with proportionate cost and with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The appellant, therefore, has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Modi appearing for the appellant – claimant has contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the claimant at Rs.29,400/- per month. However, at the same time, the Tribunal has committed an error while not awarding the compensation under the head of future loss of income. It is submitted that as per the various decisions rendered by this Court, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 5 considering the disability sustained by the claimant. It is also submitted that under the head of pain, shock and suffering as well as under the head of special diet, attendant charges, the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount and, therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal be modified by enhancing the amount of compensation.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Modi has placed reliance upon the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.2724 of 2008. He has also placed reliance upon the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.2341 of 2018. Learned advocate Mr.Modi has also placed reliance upon the decision by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Somabhai Dhurabhai Sindhava reported in 1993(2) GLR 1043

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.Pathak appearing for the Insurance Company has opposed this appeal. It is mainly contended that considering the evidence placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount under the head of future loss of income. It is submitted that during the cross-examination at Exh.28 of the claimant, he has confirmed that his income was increased after the accident and at the time of his retirement, his gross salary was around Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further submitted that during cross-examination of witness, Huned Taherbhai Chinwala, Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda at Exh.38, he has also stated that the claimant Binodbhai was working as Manager in the Bank and has stated that after the injuries, salary of the claimant was increased. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the claimant was not degraded from his rank nor his salary was decreased and in fact, the income of the claimant was increased after the accident. It is, therefore, urged that no error is committed by the Tribunal while not granting any compensation under th