N. K. MODY, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 538 of 1997, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pramod Pachori, which is also arising out of the same award. ( 2 ) M. A. No. 538 of 1997 was dismissed in default on account of non-payment of process fees in time. An application for restoration was filed which was numbered as M. C. C. No. 171 of 2005, which was allowed vide order dated 20. 1. 2006 subject to deposit of Rs. 500 with Legal Services authority within a period of 2 weeks. The amount was not deposited within 2 weeks. However, it was deposited on 7. 2. 2006. Because of this reason that the amount was not deposited in time the Misc. Appeal No. 538 of 1997 was not restored. Today, an application, I. A. No. 7153 of 2006 is filed wherein it is mentioned that the amount could not be deposited as respondent No. 3 was not knowing where the amount was to be deposited. Since, the amount has been deposited, therefore, delay in depositing the amount of cost is condoned. The appeal stands restored. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 25. 7. 1997 passed by the Second Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in the case No. 27 of 1996 whereby the learned motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, present appeal has been filed. ( 4 ) SHORT facts of the case are that the accident took place on 7. 12. 1995 between a dumper bearing registration No. MP 06-E 0725 and a bus bearing registration No. MIH 7779. The appellant was travelling in the bus. Accident took place when the bus was stationed at Pichhore Tiraha. The case of the appellant is that appellant was travelling as a passenger in the bus. It is alleged that when the bus was stationed at Pichhore Tiraha at that time a dumper which was being driven rashly and negligently came from Dabra side and dashed the bus in which appellant was sitting towards the driver's side. The bus was dragged by the offending dumper. Because of the accident the appellant sustained injuries. Appellant was hospitalised on that very day. The bus was dragged by the offending dumper. Because of the accident the appellant sustained injuries. Appellant was hospitalised on that very day. Since, the appellant sustained crush injuries on his right hand, therefore, ultimately his right hand was amputated. ( 5 ) THE appellant filed a claim petition wherein the appellant has alleged that the offending dumper was owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. ( 6 ) THE case was contested by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. After framing issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal found that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of dumper which was owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 3 and awarded compensation of Rs. 75,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the award the appeal was filed. Similarly, respondent no. 3 also filed Misc. Appeal No. 538 of 1997. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that learned Tribunal committed error in holding that appellant sustained injuries in the said accident. It is submitted that the date of accident is 7. 12. 1995 while the appellant was hospitalised as indoor patient on 7. 12. 1996. It is submitted that because of this it cannot be said that the injuries which have been sustained by the appellant were because of the accident. Learned counsel further submits that the name of appellant is Pramod Pachori while it is mentioned as Pramod Sharma in the document, Exh. P2 and also in other documents. It is submitted that identity of the patient is also disputed. ( 8 ) MR. R. V. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 also submits that treating doctor has not been examined and the doctor who has been examined was not also in a position to identify the injured. In the facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in allowing the claim petition. ( 9 ) MR. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Exh. P1 is the discharge certificate, in which date of admission of patient, no doubt, is mentioned as 7. 12. In the facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in allowing the claim petition. ( 9 ) MR. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Exh. P1 is the discharge certificate, in which date of admission of patient, no doubt, is mentioned as 7. 12. 1996, but it is also mentioned that right hand of the appellant has been amputated in December 1995 and that the date 7. 12. 1996 has been mistakenly mentioned. It is submitted that name of the appellant is Pramod Sharma, as is mentioned in document, Exh. P2. It is also submitted that Pramod Sharma and Pramod Pachori is one and the same person. The learned counsel drew the attention of this court to exh. P8 wherein the father of the appellant has given his consent for the operation on 7. 12. 1995 itself wherein it was mentioned that he is understanding the condition of the appellant and he is responsible if any mishappening takes place. From perusal of the statement of Dr. Nenson Oliyai, AW 4, it is evident that the statement was given by him on the basis of record. He has admitted that he had never examined the appellant. Dr. S. Agarkar, AW 5, has also given his statement on the basis of record and has stated that he himself examined the patient on 7. 12. 1995. In para 3 of his statement AW 5 has admitted this fact that since no identification mark has been mentioned in the record, therefore, he cannot identify that the person who is present in the court was the same person who was treated by him. Only on the basis of this part of statement it cannot be said that identity of the appellant was in dispute and pramod Sharma and Pramod Pachori are two different persons. ( 10 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed written statement wherein it is specifically mentioned by the respondent No. 3 that the appellant was travelling in the offending bus and his right hand was out of the bus. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any amount of compensation. This part of the pleadings makes it clear that it is not disputed that the appellant was travelling in the bus who sustained the injuries. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any amount of compensation. This part of the pleadings makes it clear that it is not disputed that the appellant was travelling in the bus who sustained the injuries. The only thing which is in dispute is whether the accident occurred because of the negligence of the appellant or not. In view of this, Misc. Appeal No. 538 of 1997 filed by the respondent No. 3 has no force and deserves to be dismissed. ( 11 ) SO far as the amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has found that the appellant was palledar (labourer) and was earning Rs. 70 per day. It is submitted that the age of appellant was 18 years. Learned Tribunal has awarded rs. 75,000 for which no break-up has been given. It is submitted that the injury which has been sustained by appellant is a case of 100 per cent disability, as the right hand has been amputated from shoulder joint. Learned counsel submits that as per note no. 5 (b) of Second Schedule to the Motor vehicles Act injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earniing capacity shall be as per Schedule I under the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923. It is submitted that Part II of schedule I the list of injuries contains description of injuries which deemed to result in permanent partial disablement under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation act, 1923. As per item No. 1 in a case of amputation through shoulder joint the percentage of loss of earning capacity is 90 per cent. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the medical expenses, pain and suffering sustained by the appellant. Reliance is placed on a case of this court in the case of Rakesh Kushwah v. Rasal-singh, M. A. No. 64 of 2002; decided on 23. 1. 2006, in which in case of amputation of hand the Tribunal found stump of 10 cm is left in the shoulder the disability was assessed 90 per cent. ( 12 ) THE appellant is present in court. His right hand has been amputated from shoulder joint. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the amount awarded is on lower side. ( 12 ) THE appellant is present in court. His right hand has been amputated from shoulder joint. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the amount awarded is on lower side. The appellant is entitled for compensation on account of loss of earning capacity at the rate of 90 per cent of his income. Appellant was aged 20 years as found (by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the amount of loss of income is required to be multiplied by 16 after deduction of 10 per cent of his income. The income has been assessed by Tribunal at the rate of rs. 70 per day. For the purposes of calculation of loss of income, the income of the appellant is taken into consideration as 25 days in a month. Appellant is also entitled for pa:in and suffering, expenses incurred by the appellant on attenders, medical expenses, etc. The amount for which the appellant is entitled are as follows: ( 13 ) THUS, the appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,80,000 (rupees three lakh and eighty thousand) which shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application. ( 14 ) WITH the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No orders as to costs. .