JUDGMENT :

[1.] Heard Mr. Amit C. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned advocate on record for the appellant-original claimant and learned advocate Mr. M.R. Prajapati for Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned advocate for the respondent no.3-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred as “Insurance Company”).

[2.] Despite service of notice of admission of appeal on respondent nos.1 and 2, namely the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, they have chosen not to enter any appearance or object to the present appeal. With the able assistance of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the appeal is finally heard.

[3.] The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1988”), at the instance of the original claimant-appellant herein, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 01.04.2015 (hereinafter to be referred as “the impugned judgment and award”) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod in M.A.C.P. No.651 of 2005. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding him entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,83,622/- from the original opponents, jointly and severally, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual realization. Hence, the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,89,378/- with interest and costs.

[4.] Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court, vide order dated 23.02.2016, has admitted the appeal. The record & proceedings has been called for.

[5.] At the outset, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, has fairly submitted that he is not challenging the future loss of income being denied by the Tribunal, in the facts of the case; however, the Tribunal has erroneously computed the income for the purpose of determination of actual of loss of income. Learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the Tribunal committed grave error in deducting the amount reflected under the head of deduction towards insurance and undisclosed heads in the salary slip produced on record at Exh.47. According to learned advocate, except for the amount paid towards tax being shown under the head of deduction, the rest of the amount towards insurance and undisclosed deduction was required to be added towards salary of the claimant for the purpose of determination of actual loss of income. He has, therefore, urged this Court to treat the income of the claimant as Rs.6,077/- per month, instead of Rs.4,477/-.

[5.1] It is further submitted that the injury certificate and the disability certificate have been produced on record, which clearly suggest that the claimant had undergone operation for fractures sustained in the L2-L3 vertebrae as well as the left inferior pubic ramus. With such injuries sustained by the claimant, upon his physical and clinical examination, the doctor had issued the disability certificate which is produced on record at Exh.60. The doctor who has opined that the claimant has sustained 35% disability of the body as a whole. The attention of this Court was invited to the fact that, in fact, he was operated for the aforesaid treatment of fracture, and plates and screws were also inserted, as evident from the aforesaid disability certificate produced on record at Exh.60.

[5.2] Learned advocate has, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal committed error in confining the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock, and suffering as Rs.7,500/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, at least, the Tribunal ought to have awarded sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain, shock, and suffering.