JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 15.04.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Rajkot in MACP No. 477 of 2006. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act ( for short “the Act”), 1988 holding him entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,09,240/-with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realisation, from the original opponents jointly and severally. Hence, the present appeal praying for the enhancement of aforesaid amount of compensation with proportionate cost as under.

2. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal memo and submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court vide order dated 28.09.2015 had admitted the appeal. The record and proceedings have been called for.

3. Learned advocate Ms. Dimple A. Thaker has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Despite service of notice of admission of appeal upon respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle involved, for the reasons known has chosen not to enter the appearance for contesting the present appeal. With the able assistance of learned advocates representing the respective parties, the appeal is finally heard.

4. Learned advocate Ms. Dhwani Lakhani has appeared on behalf of Mr. Hemal Shah learned advocate on record for the appellant original claimant and has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation being determined on the lower side. The attention of this Court was invited to the brief facts of the case. It was pointed out that the claimant used to do masonry work and also used to work as a Contractor and thereby used to earn his livelihood. Though it was specifically pleaded on oath before the Tribunal that he was earning Rs. 235/- per day as wages. It was also contended that he was earning additional income of Rs. 30,000/- per annum by doing agricultural activities. However, the Tribunal has refused to accept the aforesaid income for the purpose of assessment of future loss of income. Despite the production of documentary evidence in the nature of income tax returns for A.Ys. 2002- 2003, A.Ys. 2003-2004, A.Ys. 2004-2005, A.Ys 2006-2007 collectively at Exh. 34, the Tribunal has noted that the appellant has failed to produce any further corroborative evidence in the nature of account books to substantiate the aforesaid income. The Tribunal has also noted that no independent witness has also been examined by the claimant. On overall appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal has accepted the annual income reflected in Income Tax returns of A.Y 2002-2003 for the purpose of determination of income of the claimant. The Tribunal has accordingly determined the income of the claimant as Rs. 4,500/- which according to her is less. Secondly, the component of disability of 12% has also been determined on lower side. She has invited my attention to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. The reliance was placed on disability certificate issued by Dr. Dinesh Chauhan M.S (Ortho) at Exh. 39. She has pointed out from the aforesaid certificate that the claimant has sustained fracture in the lower head of the femur which has resulted into dislocation of the hip. It was further pointed out that he has sustained fracture in the nature of compress grade II of tibia tyc comminuted. Referring to the fibula disability certificate she has submitted that in fact he was operated for the aforesaid comminuted grade fracture for which he was advised rest for six weeks. Prior to that he had been treated as indoor patient for 21 days. Referring to the post operation difficulties faced by claimant, the doctor upon physi