DIPAK MISRA, R. V. RAVEENDRAN, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the Madhya Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation, owner of the bus (No. MP 07-F 287), against the judgment and award dated 30. 11. 1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Sironj, in Claim Case No. 24 of 1997 filed by respondent No. 1 herein. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was travelling on his motor cycle bearing No. DBW 1885 on 30. 3. 1985 with two pillion riders. When the respondent No. 1 overtook a jeep, the m. P. S. R. T. C. bus bearing No. MP 07-F 287 coming from the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle causing serious injuries to respondent No. 1 herein, as a result of which his right leg had to be amputated. Respondent No. 1 claimed that he was an agriculturist and was earning about Rs. 60,000 per annum. He filed the said claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 14,40,000. ( 3 ) AFTER appreciating the evidence let in, the Tribunal by its judgment dated 30. 11. 1999 held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the M. P. S. R. T. C. bus driver and that the motorcyclist (claimant)was not at fault. It awarded compensation of Rs. 1,48,916 payable by M. P. S. R. T. C. to claimant. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the M. P. S. R. T. C. has filed this appeal contending that the claims Tribunal ought to have held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the motorcyclist (claimant) not the driver of the M. P. S. R. T. C. bus. Alternatively it is contended that the compensation awarded, is excessive. On the other hand, respondent no. 1 has filed cross-objections contending that the compensation awarded is low. ( 5 ) IN view of the above, two questions arise for consideration: (i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal in regard to negligence is correct? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be increased or decreased?re: Point No. (i) ( 6 ) IN para 5 of the claim petition, the claimant has clearly stated that on the day of the accident, he was driving motor cycle bearing No. DBW 1885 with two pillion riders; that when he tried to overtake a jeep, M. P. S. R. T. C. bus came and dashed against him. He, however, further stated that he was driving the motor cycle carefully and M. P. S. R. T. C. bus was driven in a negligent manner. From the pleading of claimant, it is possible to make two inferences: (i) The fact that he was riding his motor cycle with two pillion riders shows want of care; and (ii) The fact that accident occurred when the motorcyclist was trying to overtake a jeep, shows that there was want of care on his part in not seeing the bus coming from opposite direction. No amount of evidence can change the admission in the pleadings. ( 7 ) BUT the bus is heavier and a larger vehicle. The bus driver ought to have seen the motorcyclist coming from the opposite direction. This shows clear negligence on the part of the bus driver also. Bus driver has also not stepped into the witness-box to show that he is not negligent. On the facts and circumstances, we apportion the responsibility for the accident at the rate of 70 per cent on the bus driver and 30 per cent on the motorcyclist (claimant ). Re: Point No. (ii) ( 8 ) THE claimant is an agriculturist who has to do manual labour. If the leg of such a manual labourer is amputated above knee and below hip, he is virtually prevented from doing any manual labour work. He can only do very light work with crutches or artificial leg. Therefore, we assess the permanent disability as 80 per cent of the entire body. If we take notional income as rs. 15,000 per annum, the loss of earning capacity will be 80 per cent of Rs. 15,000, i. e. , Rs. 12,000 per annum. The claimant was at the time of accident 28 years old. The applicable multiplier will therefore be 18. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity is Rs. 12,000 x 18 = Rs. 2,16,000. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the claimant has relied on the decision of the Supreme court in Pallavan Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Jagannathan, 2001 ACJ 5 (SC ). In that case where the disability was assessed at more than 85 per cent, the loss of earning capacity was assessed as 100 per cent. He therefore contended that in this case also, the loss of earning capacity should be taken as 100 per cent. Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Jagannathan, 2001 ACJ 5 (SC ). In that case where the disability was assessed at more than 85 per cent, the loss of earning capacity was assessed as 100 per cent. He therefore contended that in this case also, the loss of earning capacity should be taken as 100 per cent. Firstly, in that case the disability was assessed at more than 85 per cent but in this case, the disability is 80 per cent. Secondly, the extent of physical disability can be different from extent of loss of earning capacity. For example, in the case of a blue collar worker who has to do manual work, the loss of earning can be 100 per cent, where physical disability is only 50 to 80 per cent. On the other hand, in respect of a white collar worker, where the physical disability is 80 per cent, it may lead to a loss of earning capacity to hardly 20 per cent to 30 per cent. The loss of earning capacity therefore depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that loss of earnings should be taken as the same as the extent of physical disability. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court may not be of assistance to the respondent No. 1 (claimant ). ( 10 ) THE claimant has produced three medical bills for Rs. 18,178, Rs. 19,168 and Rs. 16,010. Apart from these bills relating to treatment, he would have incurred expenditure for attendant, nutritious food, transportation, etc. Having regard to the fact that claimant's leg was ultimately amputated after undergoing surgery several times, we are of the view that a sum of rs. 75,000 should be awarded under the head of medical and treatment expenses. In addition, we award a sum of Rs. 15,000 under the head of transportation, attendant charges and nutritious food. Thus, under the head of expenses, we award in all a sum of Rs. 90,000. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the nature of the injuries, the period of treatment and the amputation, we award a sum of Rs. 30,000 under the head of pain and suffering. We also award notional amount of Rs. 10,000 under the head of loss of amenities of life. ( 12 ) THUS total compensation amount is determined as Rs. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the nature of the injuries, the period of treatment and the amputation, we award a sum of Rs. 30,000 under the head of pain and suffering. We also award notional amount of Rs. 10,000 under the head of loss of amenities of life. ( 12 ) THUS total compensation amount is determined as Rs. 3,46,000. We have held that the claimant is guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 30 per cent. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled to receive 70 per cent of Rs. 3,46,000, i. e. , rs. 2,42,200. ( 13 ) WE accordingly allow the appeal in part as follows: (i) The compensation is increased from rs. 1,48,916 to Rs. 2,42,200. (ii) While the amount awarded by the tribunal will carry interest at 12 per cent per annum, the increased amount will carry 6 per cent interest per annum. (iii) The amount shall be deposited within three months from today. (iv) Fifty per cent of the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a term of five years and renewed for another five years with a nationalised bank, with liberty to draw interest. (v) Parties to bear respective costs. Appeal partly allowed. .