HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise from one common judgment and award dated 16. 3. 1990, delivered by the District Judge, Uttara Kannada, as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, awarding the claimant in M. V. C. No. 400 of 1988, a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and in M. V. C. No. 409 of 1988, awarding the claimant compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Kasimji Muzumil alias Md. Iqbal filed M. V. C. No. 400 of 1988 giving rise to appeal M. F. A. No. 314 of 1992, making a claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-, while the claimant in m. V. C. No. 409 of 1988, giving rise to M. F. A. No. 2746 of 1991, Jaiyauddin Hassan Tare filed a claim petition claiming the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/-, against the respondents. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the facts of the case, the claimant in M. V. C. Case No. 400 of 1988,. e. , the appellant in M. F. A. No. 314 of 1992, was proceeding to Sarpankatta village at Bhatkal, on a motor cycle bearing No. GDD 7007, along with Jaiyauddin Hassan Tare, the claimant in M. V. C. Case No. 409 of 1988 (M. F. A. No. 2746 of 1991 ). According to their case, they were proceeding slowly and carefully on the left side of the road and when they were so proceeding, a truck bearing No. CNG 5679, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motor cycle of Kasimji Muzumil alias Md. Iqbal, the appellant in M. F. A. No. 314 of 1992, that is, the claimant in the M. V. C. Case No. 400 of 1988, after coming to the wrong side, that is, the truck having come on the wrong side. The case of both the claimants or both the appellants has been that as a result of this incident, the claimants-petitioners were thrown out from the motor cycle and they sustained grievous injuries on their right legs causing fractures as well as other grievous injuries on the other parts of the body. The case of both the claimants or both the appellants has been that as a result of this incident, the claimants-petitioners were thrown out from the motor cycle and they sustained grievous injuries on their right legs causing fractures as well as other grievous injuries on the other parts of the body. According to the case of both the claimants, after initial treatment at K. M. C. Hospital, Manipal and there, the right leg of the petitioner, Kasimji Muzumil alias Md. Iqbal, present appellant was amputated below the knee joint and the right leg of Jaiyauddin Hassan, the claimant in M. V. C. Case No. 409 of 1988 was treated with plaster cast. The claimants further alleged that in spite of treatment being given, the injuries could not be cured. The claimant in M. V. C. Case No. 400 of 1988, namely, Kasimji muzumil alias Md. Iqbal alleged that on account of injuries and deprivation of the leg being amputated, he was deprived of his earning capacity and he was unable to do any business as before. The claimant's claim in M. V. C. Case No. 400 of 1988, that is, Kasimji appellant asserted that he was earning a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month by doing the business prior to occurrence of the incident. He also asserted that he had incurred more than Rs. 20,000/- in medical expenditure till then and was likely to incur more in medical expenditure and other allied expenditures. The claimant as such in his claim petition made a claim for Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for injuries, disability costs, loss of income in future as well as towards the amount spent on medicine, transport as well as for pain and suffering, that is under both the counts of general and special damages. In total the claim in M. V. C. No. 400 of 1988 is for Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation and damages. In M. V. C. No. 409 of 1988, the claim for compensation is to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/- only. The owner of the truck, C. Yogesh Mallaya, who has been the first respondent in the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, remained absent before the Tribunal in spite of service of notice of the petitions in both the cases and the cases proceeded against owner ex parte as appears from para 8 of the judgment of the Tribunal. 1,75,000/- only. The owner of the truck, C. Yogesh Mallaya, who has been the first respondent in the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, remained absent before the Tribunal in spite of service of notice of the petitions in both the cases and the cases proceeded against owner ex parte as appears from para 8 of the judgment of the Tribunal. The insurance company only contested the claims and filed the objections denying the claims made by claimant-appellants. The case taken by them was that both the claimants had gone on a joy-ride and they were involved in the accident and there was contributory negligence on their part of about 50 per cent and, therefore, compensation should not be more than 50 per cent in absence of impleading of insurer of the motor cycle. The insurer further asserted that the amount of compensation claim in both the petitions was out of proportions and the limit of insurance itself is only Rs. 1,50,000/- and if at all just and reasonable compensation to the extent of 50 per cent may have to be awarded. Rest claim may be rejected, the company prayed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues which were common in both the cases : (1) Whether the petitioners prove that they had sustained injuries in an accident that occurred on 10. 5. 1988 at about 11. 15 a. m. near Sarpankatta at Bhatkal on N. H. No. 17 due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing No. CNG 5679 by one Krishna Poojari when the petitioners were proceeding on a motor cycle GDD 7007? (2) What compensation the petitioners are entitled to and which respondent is liable to pay? (3) What order? ( 3 ) THE evidence was recorded both oral and documentary and after perusal of the evidence, the tribunal answered the issue No. 1 in the affirmative and held that the petitioners have proved that petitioners had sustained injuries in the accident which took place on 10. 5. 1988, at about 11. 15 a. m. near Sarpankatta at Bhatkal on N. H. No. 17, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing No. CNG 5679 by its driver when petitioners were proceeding on their motor cycle referred above. 5. 1988, at about 11. 15 a. m. near Sarpankatta at Bhatkal on N. H. No. 17, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing No. CNG 5679 by its driver when petitioners were proceeding on their motor cycle referred above. The Tribunal further found that the petitioners had suffered grievous injuries resulting in amputation of the leg of the claimant in M. V. C. Case No. 400 of 1988. The Tribunal held that the claimants in both the petitions proved to have incurred the expenses towards medicine and payment to doctor, travelling expenses and others. In M. V. C. Case No. 400 of 1988, it awarded Rs. 30,000/- as special damages towards medical expenses, food and incidental charges, while in M. V. C. Case No. 409 of 1988, it awarded special damages with reference to expenses of medicine, payment to doctors, travelling expenses, expenses on care-taker, etc. , both present and future, to the tune of Rs. 40,000/ -. The Tribunal after awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimant in Claim Petition No. 400 of 1988, that is to Kasimji, applying the multiplier of 20, held that even if we take the minimum of Rs. 600/- per month, yearly income will come to Rs. 7,200/- and applying that multiplier thereof, the rough estimate of loss will come to Rs. 1,40,000/- and then, award of Rs. 1,00,000/- for permanent disability, loss of income and loss of prospect of life in M. V. C. No. 400 of 1988, while in the other case, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering under separate head and Rs. 1,00,000/towards loss of income, present and future and Rs. 40,000/- as had been granted towards the medical, other expenses, general damages,. e. special damages. Thus, in the claim in M. V. C. 409 of 1988, the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- with 9 per cent interest has been awarded, while in M. V. C. Case No. 400 of 1988, a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- was awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. Feeling aggrieved with the dismissal of their remaining claims, both the claimants have filed the two appeals mentioned above. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, Mr. Harish Anantha murthy. 1,30,000/- was awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. Feeling aggrieved with the dismissal of their remaining claims, both the claimants have filed the two appeals mentioned above. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, Mr. Harish Anantha murthy. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted in both the appeals that the compensation awarded is not reasonable and just. Mr. Harish submitted that the Tribunal while awarding the compensation with respect to claimant in M. V. C. No. 400 of 1988,. e. , appellant in m. F. A. No. 314 of 1992, has wrongly assumed the claimant's income at the time of occurrence to be Rs. 600/ -. The learned Counsel submitted that the evidence on record, that is the unrebutted evidence of the claimants discloses that the income of the applicants or appellants was at the time of occurrence, running between Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- and in any case at worst, the lowest side of the income of the claimants should have been taken to be at least Rs. 1,000/- per month as per evidence on record and not Rs. 600. Learned counsel submitted that assumption of rs. 600/- as income is far from being correct. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Tribunal itself calculated the loss on the basis of income of Rs. 600/- per month,. e. , Rs. 7,200/- per year which is lowest. What is the lowest income indicated in the evidence even applying the multiplier of 20, it had found that the claimants had suffered the pecuniary loss of income by rough estimation to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/- and more. Learned counsel laid emphasis on the expression used by the learned Judge of the Tribunal as to a rough estimation of Rs. 1,40,000/- and more, and submitted that in such circumstances, the award of compensation for permanent disability and loss of income or loss of prospects in life to the tune of sums exceeding,. e. , more than Rs. 1,40,000/- would have been just and fair. Learned counsel submitted that at least, if not more, the compensation for loss of income and prospects in life should have been Rs. 1,40,000/- or Rs. 1,50,000, which according to the calculation of the counsel, should have been more than Rs. 1,50,000/ -. e. , more than Rs. 1,40,000/- would have been just and fair. Learned counsel submitted that at least, if not more, the compensation for loss of income and prospects in life should have been Rs. 1,40,000/- or Rs. 1,50,000, which according to the calculation of the counsel, should have been more than Rs. 1,50,000/ -. Learned counsel further submitted that no compensation has been awarded to the applicants for pain and suffering, though the same has been mentioned in the claim petition. Compensation for pain and suffering, learned Counsel submitted, has been awarded in the other case,. e. , M. V. C. No. 409 of 1988, to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ -. To that extent, the claimant-appellant in M. F. A. No. 314 of 1992, should have been at least allowed, or a reasonable sum to be allowed as the appellant has been the subject-matter of pain and suffering for good long days. Learned counsel further submitted that in case of amputation of the leg definitely, the compensation should have been higher than the one which may be awarded for other injuries. The learned Counsel for appellant with reference to M. F. A. No. 2746 of 1991, further submitted that the claim for compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,000/should not have been rejected by Tribunal, it should have awarded compensation in entirety as claimed as well by claimant in M. V. C. No. 409 of 1988. On behalf of the appellants, it has also been submitted that the interest at the rate of 9 per cent has been insufficient and it should have been at the rate of 11 per cent,. e. , bank rate which has been paid on the bank deposits. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants have been hotly contested on behalf of National Insurance Co. Ltd. by Mr. O. Mahesh, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, in the appeal. None has put in appearance to contest the appeal on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Mahesh submitted that overall grant of compensation in both the cases is just, correct and reasonable. He submitted that due to amputation of lower leg, the loss of income may be 50 per cent or it may be 60 per cent and if he had calculated on that basis, the loss of income may come to only Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Mahesh submitted that overall grant of compensation in both the cases is just, correct and reasonable. He submitted that due to amputation of lower leg, the loss of income may be 50 per cent or it may be 60 per cent and if he had calculated on that basis, the loss of income may come to only Rs. 1,00,000/ -. So, the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of income in case of the claimant in M. V. C. No. 400 of 1988,. e. , appellant in Appeal No. 314 of 1992. He further submitted that although, he has not filed the appeal but, ordinarily multiplier 16 or 18 has been held to be reasonable and proper and if, that is applied it may come to less than Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The learned Counsel for the company submitted that the compensation has been granted in lump sum and it may include in itself compensation for pain and suffering, but if this contention is not accepted then definitely, no compensation separately has been awarded to appellants for pain and suffering as per award and it is open to this Court to pass the order it thinks fit. Mr, O. Mahesh, counsel for insurance company, further submitted that claim for interest that has been made by the learned Counsel for the appellants, has to be increased is not justified. The Tribunal has itself awarded the interest at the rate of 9 per cent, when in some cases, it has granted at 6 per cent. So, it may not be enhanced in either of the cases. He further submitted that really, the claim in M. V. C. No. 409 of 1988 has almost been decreed in toto, excepting for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, but there is no justified ground to increase that, he has been granted even the compensation for loss of income to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. ( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties and have seen the record with the viewship assistance of the counsel. That the finding about rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver has not been challenged nor has any appeal or cross-objection been filed by respondents. ( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties and have seen the record with the viewship assistance of the counsel. That the finding about rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver has not been challenged nor has any appeal or cross-objection been filed by respondents. That as regards compensation, it may be pointed out that the claimant in M. V. C. No. 400 of 1988,. e. , Appeal No. 314 of 1992, has indicated that the right leg was amputated just below the knee. After the incident that had taken place, he was taken to Government Hospital at Bhatkal and thereafter, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital and there he was treated for two months as an indoor patient and after a period of 6 days, his leg was amputated. It has also come on record that the thigh portion bone was also fractured, it was operated and a rod was inserted and for that he had to remain for 12 days in the hospital. The claimant, Kasimji, the appellant in Appeal No. 314 of 1992, as per evidence on the record has submitted the bills for medical expenses, for service charges, etc. to the tune of Rs. 24,556/ -. In evidence, it has been stated that the income of the appellant in Appeal No. 314 of 1992, that is, Kasimji alias Md. Iqbal was running in between Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,500/-, there is nothing on record which may indicate that his income was Rs. 600/- per month. In the claim petition, the income has been stated to be Rs. 1,200/- per month. If the income is taken to run in between Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,500/-, it should have either been taken as Rs. 1,200/- or at the minimum Rs. 1,000/- per month, but not Rs. 600/ -. If the income is taken to be Rs. 1,200/- per month, then yearly income of the appellant would come to Rs. 14,400. If the multiplier of 20 as applied by the Tribunal is applied, the figure for loss of income may come to Rs. 2,88,000/ -. Here, the appellant Kasimji was only 29 years at the time of occurrence. Life expectancy in the country is ordinarily taken to be 60, as in some cases it has been taken as increased up to 70 years. 2,88,000/ -. Here, the appellant Kasimji was only 29 years at the time of occurrence. Life expectancy in the country is ordinarily taken to be 60, as in some cases it has been taken as increased up to 70 years. In this regard, I may make a reference to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, where longevity has been assumed to be 70 years, namely, in the case of Prerna v. Madhya pradesh State Road Trans. Corporation 1993 ACJ254 , JT1993 (1 )SC 295 , 1993 (1 )SCALE218 , (1993 )1 SCC621 , [1993 ]1 SCR321 or I may refer to the decision in the case of Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation 1992 ACJ300 , AIR1992 SC 1261 , JT1992 (2 )SC 409 , 1992 (1 )SCALE662 , (1992 )2 SCC567 , [1992 ]2 SCR272 , 1992 (1 )UJ666 (SC ), for the case. In these cases, their Lordships of supreme Court have been pleased to apply multiplier of twenty and more. If we take that ordinarily, capacity to work may run to 58 or 60 years, applying of the multiplier 20 cannot be said or held to be unjustified as has been done by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondents in this regard submitted that under Workmen's Compensation Act, the amputation of leg has been taken to result in the loss of 50 per cent of the earning capacity or at the most 60 per cent. For a moment if this position stands accepted, even if it is taken to be correct as is submitted by the learned Counsel for the insurance company, the 50 per cent of the figure of Rs. 1,200/- x 12 x 20 is equal to Rs. 2,88,000/- divided by 1/2, that is 50 per cent will come to Rs. 1,44,000/- and 60 per cent of Rs. 2,88,000/- would come to Rs. 1,72,800/ -. The tribunal itself has observed that loss of income will be to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000/- or more. Taking this view, in my opinion, the claimant in M. V. C. Case No. 400 of 1988, Kasimji alias md. Iqbal should have been granted or awarded compensation of Rs. 1,44,000 or Rs. 1,40,000/towards damages for his income and future prospects. I think it will be proper to award loss of income, damages or compensation to the tune of at least Rs. Iqbal should have been granted or awarded compensation of Rs. 1,44,000 or Rs. 1,40,000/towards damages for his income and future prospects. I think it will be proper to award loss of income, damages or compensation to the tune of at least Rs. 1,45,000/- for loss of income as a result of injury. Petitioner has suffered pain and suffering during the period, the claimant in the other case has also suffered pain and suffering. The Tribunal no doubt, awarded for pain and suffering to the claimant in M. V. C. No. 409, a sum of Rs. 25,000/ -. I think that at least to that extent, it should have awarded for pain and suffering under head 'general damages' to the claimant in M. F. A. No. 314 of 1992 and therefore, he is being hereby awarded Rs. 25,000/- as damages for pain and suffering, the medical expenses have already been awarded to the tune of rs. 30,000/ -. I think that amount should be raised by Rs. 2,000/- more and therefore, for medical expenses, the compensation for present and future is awarded to the tune of Rs. 32,000/ -. With respect to the loss of income to the appellants, I think award of Rs. 1,45,000/- keeping in view one more fact that the other person has been awarded Rs. 1,65,000/- under this head, while the appellant in M. F. A. No. 314 of 1992, whose leg had to be amputated has also been awarded same sum by Tribunal under this head of loss of income present and future which is not in keeping pace with consideration of the loss of leg or amputation of his leg. It should have been more. Thus considered, the appellant in M. F. A. No. 314 of 1992 is awarded Rs. 1,45,000/-, as damages for loss of income present and future. ( 6 ) AS mentioned above, the contention which has been raised with respect to the rate of interest has got no substance. In my opinion, interest at the rate of 9 per cent is sufficiently good enough, as such the contention in this regard is being rejected in both the appeals. In the claim made in m. F. A. No. 2746 of 1991, I do not find any ground to interfere and to enhance any amount of compensation, as compensation awarded appears to be just and reasonable in favour of appellant. In the claim made in m. F. A. No. 2746 of 1991, I do not find any ground to interfere and to enhance any amount of compensation, as compensation awarded appears to be just and reasonable in favour of appellant. Thus, Kasimji Muzumil alias Md. Iqbal v. C. Yogesh Mallaya, M. F. A. No. 314 of 1992 is hereby allowed and the appellant Kasimji Muzumil alias Md. Iqbal is awarded compensation as under : for loss of income and future prospects a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- as damages. With respect to pain and suffering, he is awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and with respect to medical expenses, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is increased by Rs. 2,000/-, that is instead of Rs. 30,000/- it will come to Rs. 32,000/ -. Thus, the total compensation under these heads comes to Rs. 2,02,000/ -. ( 7 ) THE interest on the increased amount is also being granted from the date of the application for the claim at the rate which has been fixed by the Tribunal, that is 9 per cent. M. F. A. No. 314 of 1992 is thus allowed. M. F. A. No. 2746 of 1991, as is without substance, so is being hereby dismissed. Costs are made easy in both the cases that have to be borne by the respective parties.