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.), Kachchh at Bhuj (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) vide impugned judgment and award dated 27.12.2005 passed in M.A.C.P. No.763 of 1995.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 29.04.1995, the claimant was working as cleaner in truck bearing registration no.GJ-10-T-9690 and was going to Mithapur from Panadhro, at that time, at about 5.00 p.m., when the truck reached near temple of Khodiar Mata, the driver of opponent no.2 came from opposite direction driving a truck bearing registration no. GTP- 7716 in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed, collided with truck No.GJ-10-T-9690, due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries like permanent disability. Hence, the claimant had preferred M.A.C.P. No.763 of 1995, which came to be partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.12.2005 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,03,700/- as against his claim of claiming Rs.3,00,000/-.

3. Heard Mr.Samee Uraizee, learned counsel with Mr.Jenil Shah, learned counsel with Mr.Mehul Shah, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant – claimant and Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned counsel with Mr.Nayan Ravani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of respondent no.2.

4. Mr.Samee Uraizee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered and appreciated the quantum while awarding the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated and applied the multiplier. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly awarded the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering. He has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,03,700/- as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. He has submitted that the claimant would not be in a position to work as a cleaner in truck or labourer and such functional disability of the appellant was required to be considered as a whole and permanent and not merely 16% as assessed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that the Tribunal has to appreciate the fact that the appellant has taken the treatment as an indoor patient and thereafter as an outdoor patient in hospitals at Jamnagar and Bhuj. He has submitted that this is a fit case to award Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. He has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the prospective rise in the income of the appellant and the Tribunal ought to have considered income of Rs.6,000/- per month. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.5,000/- under other heads instead of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges. He has submitted that the Tribunal has to award interest at the rate of 15% instead of 9%. He has prayed to modify the amount awarded and substitute the amount as prayed for. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Syed Sadiq Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, (2014) 2 SCC 735.

5. Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the award.

6. In the case of Syed Sadiq (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs no.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 26 as under:-

10. Further, it is evident from the material evidence on record that the appellant claimant was 24 years old at the time of occurrence of the accident. It is also established on record that he was earning his livelihood by vending vegetables. The issue regarding calculation of prospective increment of income in the future of self