JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant – original claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) dated 09.08.2005 passed in M.A.C.P. No.113 of 1998.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 06.11.1997, the claimant along with her relatives was going to darshan from Bhavnagar to Gadhada in jeep bearing registration no.GJ-07-H- 5207 and at 11.45 p.m. near Tatam Village, on account of negligency on the part of both the drivers, two vehicles dashed to each other, as a result of which, the claimant sustained serious injury. Hence, the claimant had preferred M.A.C.P. No.113 of 1998, which came to be partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.08.2005 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- as against her claim of claiming Rs.7,00,000/-.

3. Heard Mr.M. A. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr.H. G. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. Though served, nobody appears for respondents no.1 and respondent no.3 was deleted.

4. Mr.M. A. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is the case of personal injury to the claimant and during the pendency of this present appeal, original claimant was passed away and her legal heir was brought on record vide order dated 19.01.2016. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the contention and averments made by the appellant – claimant in its true and perspective spirit for getting compensation. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the income of the claimant as at the time of accident, the claimant was running a beauty parlour and she was earning extra income from the occasion of marriages and festival and other occasions and the Tribunal has considered very meager amount i.e. Rs.1500/- p.m. as a matter of fact the claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. after deducting salary of her colleague and earning Rs.18,000/- extra from other occasion. He has submitted that the claimant sustained grievous and multiple injuries and her right hand being amputed and for this reason, her income became stopped as her business depends on hands and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of income of Rs.1,50,000/-. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the medical expenses i.e. all charges including medical bills etc. and considered only Rs.5,000/- and, therefore, to what extent it is possible for one in case of amputation and instead of considering at least Rs.1,00,000/-, however, the Tribunal has given only Rs.5,000/- under the said head. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospective income of the appellant as she has lost her right hand in the accident and therefore the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that after amputation the appellant became unemployed. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- under the heads of special diet and attendant charges, but the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of special diet and Rs.7,000/- under the head of attendant charges. He has relied upon the two decisions of this Court in the case of (1) Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel since Decd. Through Heirs Vs. Joseph Francis Mewan and another rendered in First Appeal No. 1528 of 2009 dated 15.12.2015 and (2) Mahendrabhai Chimanbhai Patel Vs. Bhikhabhai Patanwadiya and others rendered in First Appeal No.324 of 2008 dated 08.05.2013.

5. Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr.H. G. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 have submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. They both have prayed for dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the award.

6. In the case of M