JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.

2. By way of present appeal, the appellant herein is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.618 of 2015.

3. The brief facts as stated by the appellant - original claimant germane for adjudication of the present appeal reads thus :-

3.1 That the appellant was traveling in the Rickshaw No.GJ-07-YY-4034 of the ownership of respondent no.2 on 19.02.2015, at 08:30 p.m., on the Khatraj Chokdi to Mankva Road, it reached at road on eastern side of Bhoi Underpass, the driver – respondent No.1 herein, the driver of the rickshaw of the ownership of respondent no.2 drove rickshaw rashly and negligently at full speed and dashed it with a motorcycle, lost control over rickshaw and rickshaw turned turtle. The appellant - original applicant sustained injury in right eye, serious fracture on the parietal region of the head and several minor – major injuries on other parts of the body and the appellant - original applicant was admitted to Amit and Parth Hospital at Nadiad, where the appellant - original applicant availed treatment as an indoor patient for many days and presently, the appellant - original applicant is availing treatment as outdoor patient. Therefore, the appellant - original applicant has sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the pain he underwent.

4. The Tribunal framed the following issues which read thus :-

"1. Whether the applicant proves that, he sustained injuries because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to get compensation? If yes, what amount and from whom?

3. What order and award?"

5. The said issues came to be decided in affirmative and in favour of the appellant herein.

6. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nadiad in MACP No.618 of 2015. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal has committed error by considering the income of the appellant as Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.6,500/- per month as the appellant was working as agriculture labourer before the date of accident. The learned Tribunal ought to have relied upon the schedule of minimum wage to confirm the monthly income of the deceased in absence of income proof to allow just compensation. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by not allowing any amount under the head of future prospective income. The learned Tribunal ought to have allowed 50% future prospective income considering that the appellant as sustained 40% permanent disability due to the unfortunate accident. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant further submitted that the age of the appellant was 26 years on the date of accident. The learned Tribunal has committed error by considering the disability of the appellant as 35% for the calculation of Future Economic Loss.

7. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate submitted that the prospective income is required to be added to the tune of 40%. Pain, Shock and Suffering - Rs.10,000/- enhancing to Rs.55,000/- (in column No.2). No change in Medical Expenses i.e. Rs.5,000/-. Special diet, Transportation and Attendance charges - Rs.7,500/- is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (i.e. Rs.25,000/- - Rs.7,500/- = Rs.17,500/-). Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, the learned advoc