JUDGMENT 1. These are two appeals arising from the same judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota dated May 12, 1986 awarding compensation of Rs. 33,000 together with interest of 6 per cent. 2. On 20th July, 1977 at about 4.00 p. m the claimant respondent was coming on his motor cycle RSR 2370 from Pipalda to Kota. Dinesh Singh was pillion rider on the aforesaid motor cycle. Truck No. RSR 2856 driven rashly and negligently by the opposite party No. 3 coming from Kota and knock down the motor cycle resulting in the injuries to the appellant. Tejmal sustained injuries on his leg and Dinesh Singh on his forehead and right hand. Both were removed to Kota Hospital and Dinesh Singh was discharged on 31-7-1977 and Tejmal remained under treatment for much more time. He was removed to Santakba Durlabhju Hospital at Jaipur and remained there till 10-10-1977. Ultimately one of the leg of Tejmal was amputated. 3. The claimant Tejmal in claim petition demanded Rs. 4,000,00 by way of damages. Dinesh Singh demanded Rs. 20,000. 4. The insurer of the vehicle in question defended the claim petition. The owner and driver of the truck denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving and pleaded that respondent No. 3 was driving the truck at the material time on the correct side and was slow. It was also pleaded that the driver had no valid licence of the vehicle as such the insurance company is not liable to pay under section 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence, the Tribunal has given the award as mentioned above on 12-5-1982. Both sides have filed appeals, The owner of the truck has also filed cross-objections, 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the relevant record I am of the opinion that it is proved on record that the truck at the relevant time was being driven on the wrong side of the road. 7. The Tribunal has found on credible evidence that the truck was not driven on the correct side. It was not on the left side. It was on the right side from the centre of the road. 8. 7. The Tribunal has found on credible evidence that the truck was not driven on the correct side. It was not on the left side. It was on the right side from the centre of the road. 8. In view of the above, there is no doubt that the accident occurred on account of the truck being driven on the wrong side. In such a case the question of contributory negligence of the motor cycle cannot arise. It is well known that motor cycle is light vehicle which was knocked down by the truck and the truck is heavy vehicle in comparison to the motor cycle. 9. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that if the motor cycle is driven at the speed of 40 Kilometres it can be said to be rash because for a motor cycle the speed of 40 kilometres cannot be said to be fast or high speed. 10. Moreover when the truck was coming on the wrong side, it was the truck driver who was at fault. In this view of the matter the finding of the Tribunal that the driver Tejmal who was driving the motor cycle is also guilty of contributory negligence, cannot be justified, and deserves to be set aside. 11. Now the question comes as to what is the liability and what amount of compensation should be awarded. It has come on record that Tejmal's leg was amputated completely and amputation of a leg of a person resulting in 70 per cent disability is a serious matter which cripples a person and makes him handicapped for the whole of his life. He is handicapped not only in his business or profession but is handicapped in social life, in personal life and the society look down to such a person. In my opinion amputation of a leg resulting in such a serious handicapped should be compensated with the amount which should be allowed liberally. 12. In the present case it has been found that the income of Tejmal at the time of the accident was Rs. 21,560 per year. 13. Now coming to the question of compensation the Tribunal has found that the income of injured Tejmal was Rs. 21,000 per year from business of the shop and agricultural. It has been found that at the time of the accident the injured was 40 years of age. 21,560 per year. 13. Now coming to the question of compensation the Tribunal has found that the income of injured Tejmal was Rs. 21,000 per year from business of the shop and agricultural. It has been found that at the time of the accident the injured was 40 years of age. It has also been found that according to the medical evidence there would be total 70 per cent disability in the functioning. In view of all about the finding of the Tribunal that the loss would be only 200 rupees per month cannot be sustained. 14. In my opinion the minimum loss to such a person without an amputated leg for the whole of the life would at least be Rs. 500 per month in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Since the expectancy of the age in these times 65 to 70 years, I would apply the multiplier of 25 in the present case. On that application the compensation would be 12 x 500 x 25 = 1,50,000. In my opinion the injured Tejmal whose entire leg has been amputated should be awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the loss of his future income in the life alongwith other losses which have already been awarded by the Tribunal. 16. The result would be that the injured would get the amount awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads plus the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 for future income. 17. Now coming to the appeal of insurance company, I find that the only point argued by Mr. Srivastava is regarding the difference in the two licences produced before the Tribunal. I am not impressed by the submission of Mr. Srivastava that the present one is a case where the truck driver was not having any licence whatsoever. The Tribunal has dealt with this point in para No. 33 and 34. According to the Tribunal the licence duplicate copy produced by Nandlal clearly goes to show that he had a licence to drive heavy vehicles. The Insurance Company has not produced any one in evidence and relied on endorsement of the office of the R. T. A. showing that earlier licence was only for a tractor and the licence was given in 1978, which is not enough to rebut the duplicate licence produced by Nand Lal along with his evidence. The Insurance Company has not produced any one in evidence and relied on endorsement of the office of the R. T. A. showing that earlier licence was only for a tractor and the licence was given in 1978, which is not enough to rebut the duplicate licence produced by Nand Lal along with his evidence. I am therefore of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that Nand Lal had a licence to drive heavy vehicle on the date of the accident. 18. Consequently the objection of insurance company on this score cannot be accepted and is rejected. 19. The result of the above discussion is that the claim is increased as mentioned above. The claimants would get interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the application till the date of the compensation is paid as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chameliwati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi and others, 1985 ACJ 645 . The amount already paid would be adjusted. The liability of the insurance company would be only Rs. 50,000. 20. The appeal of the claimant is accepted and that of the Insurance company is rejected. The cross-objection of the owner is also rejected. There would be no order as to costs so far as this appeal is concerned in this Court. *******