JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. - The claimant-appellant by way of this appeal has challenged the award dated 2.6.1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 30 of 25.7.1995. 2. The claimant-appellant filed a claim petition against the State of Punjab and others under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. three lacs) on account of the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident. 3. The case set up by the claimant-appellant was that on 4.8.1994 at about 11 a.m. the claimant-appellant came from Gagret to Hoshiarpur in Punjab Roadways Depot Hoshiarpur Bus No. PB-12-8406 to meet her sister-in-law, who was admitted in Deep Nursing Home at Tanda Bye-pass Road, Hoshiarpur. On the request of the claimant-appellant, conductor of the bus stopped the bus near Tanda Bye-pass in front of the lane leading to Deep Nursing Home. Before she could alight from the bus completely through the front door, the driver of the bus started running the same in a rash and negligent manner. As a result thereof, she fell down on the ground/road and her right leg was run over under the rear tyre of the bus. Due to this, she suffered crushed injuries on her right leg. In an unconscious state, she was removed to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, from where she was referred to the PGI, Chandigarh. 4. It was claimed that her statement was recorded by the Police at PGI, Chandigarh, while she was in semi-conscious condition. However, the same was used by the police to help the driver with his connivance. It was further her case that on coming to know about the said case, she made a complaint/representation for recording her statement correctly to lodge criminal case against respondent No. 3 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The claimant claimed that she was 40 years old at the time of the accident and that she was a house-wife and was earning a sum of Rs 3,000/- per month. It was also claimed that she remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh from 4.8.1994 to 2.10.1994 as an indoor patient and three operations on her leg were performed on 5.8.1994, 26.8.1994 and 27.9.1994. Thereafter, she got treatment as an outdoor patient while staying at Chandigarh. It was also claimed that she remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh from 4.8.1994 to 2.10.1994 as an indoor patient and three operations on her leg were performed on 5.8.1994, 26.8.1994 and 27.9.1994. Thereafter, she got treatment as an outdoor patient while staying at Chandigarh. It was also claimed that she was undergoing treatment even on the date of filing of the claim petition. She also claimed to have spent more than Rs. 50,000/- on medicines, medical expenses and on conveyance for visiting Chandigarh. She claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. three lacs) for loss suffered on account of permanent disability, loss of earning capacity and earnings, expenditure on medical treatment, conveyance charges, nutritious diet, disfigurement, mental agony and for pain and suffering. She further claimed compensation for present and future loss of enjoyment of life. She also claimed compensation for the expenditure incurred on account of attendant, entertainment of guests and loss of social status. The husband of the claimant is said to be a shopkeeper at Gagret and she has got two minor daughters and a minor son. The son was said to be studying at Navodaya School at Una. 6. It was also her case that her in-laws traditionally keep milch cattle and sell milk. It was claimed that on account of the accident, the son of the claimant-appellant was compelled to leave the school in order to take care of the cattle and had to join Govt. High School, Gagret. Due to her prolonged treatment, the cattle had to be sold. Therefore, she suffered a loss of income to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand) per month. It was claimed that she has to regularly visit PGI Chandigarh for treatment and on each visit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was spent. It was also claimed that she is still bed-ridden, her treatment is still continues and she is still suffering from pain in her whole body. She further claimed that she has suffered permanent disability due to this accident. 7. Notice of the claim was given to the respondents. A joint written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, wherein a preliminary objection was taken that the claim petition was not maintainable as the same was not filed within time. 8. On merits, the allegations made in the claim petition were denied and a plea was taken by respondent Nos. A joint written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, wherein a preliminary objection was taken that the claim petition was not maintainable as the same was not filed within time. 8. On merits, the allegations made in the claim petition were denied and a plea was taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the accident took place due to the fault and negligence of the claimant. The statement of the claimant was recorded, which was signed by her. In the said statement, she had admitted that there was no fault of the bus driver as she had suffered due to loss of balance and weakness of her leg while unboarding the bus. She further admitted in her statement that respondent No. 3 was driving the bus very carefully and the accident had occurred owing to her own fault. The other allegations were denied. Similar stand was taken by respondent No. 3 i.e. driver of the bus. 9. After filing of the replication, the learned Tribunal was pleased to frame the following issues:- "1. Whether respondent No. 3 had caused the injuries to the claimant by rash and negligent driving of Bus Number PB-12-8406 on 4.8.1994 ? OPA 2. To what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled and from whom ? OPA 3. Relief." Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were taken up together and on appreciation of evidence, a finding was recorded that respondent No. 3 had caused the injuries to the claimant-appellant by rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PB-12-8406 on 4.8.1994. However, on issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal was pleased to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 65,000/- (Rs. sixty five thousand) on account of permanent disability to the tune of 90 per cent in relation to right lower limb equivalent to 32% impairment in relation to her whole body and conducting of three operations, when the 4th was in the offing. In addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 10,566/- (Rs. ten thousand five hundred sixty six) was awarded towards taxi fare which stood proved. She was further held entitled to Rs. 6,131.50 towards medical expenses which also stood proved. In addition thereto, another sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. fifteen thousand) was granted for pain and suffering, mental tension, inconvenience and harassment due to the accident. Thus total compensation payable was assessed at Rs. 96,697.50 (Rs. She was further held entitled to Rs. 6,131.50 towards medical expenses which also stood proved. In addition thereto, another sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. fifteen thousand) was granted for pain and suffering, mental tension, inconvenience and harassment due to the accident. Thus total compensation payable was assessed at Rs. 96,697.50 (Rs. Ninety six thousand six hundred ninety seven and paise fifty only). Interest @ 12% per annum was also granted. 10. Mr. S.S. Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 2. His contention was that the appellant-claimant had suffered the following injuries :- (i) Crushed injury on right foot. (ii) Avulsion injury on right leg. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the crush of right leg was so severe that she was advised knee amputation and prosthesis. On account of these injuries, the Disability Board came to the conclusion that the appellant-claimant has been rendered physically handicapped and having 32% impairment in relation to her whole body and 90% in relation to her right lower limb. The Disability Certificate is exhibited on record as AW-5/B. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that without considering the entitlement and loss of income, the learned Tribunal assessed compensation payable on account of disability at Rs. 65,000/- (Rs. sixty five thousands) only and loss of income for non-performing of house-hold duties, mental tension and for harassment due to the accident was assessed at Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. fifteen thousand) only. 12. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant- appellant that no amount has been awarded for future medical treatment even though she was still under treatment. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Manju v. Mahavir Prasad Jain and others, 2002 ACJ 363. In the said case, Honble Rajasthan High Court was pleased to grant a sum of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation for amputation of right leg below knee of a girl of 5 years. 13. On a consideration of the matter, I find that assessment of Rs. 65,000/- by the learned Tribunal on account of permanent disability suffered by the claimant is not justified. 5 lacs as compensation for amputation of right leg below knee of a girl of 5 years. 13. On a consideration of the matter, I find that assessment of Rs. 65,000/- by the learned Tribunal on account of permanent disability suffered by the claimant is not justified. In order to assess the compensation payable, the guidelines given in 2nd Schedule of the Act, have to be taken into consideration which lay down that for assessing compensation payable, the Tribunal is required to take into consideration the loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding 52 weeks and further in case of permanent total disablement the amount payable has to be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation and in case of permanent partial disablement, such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in case of permanent total disablement, has to be assessed and for the purpose of assessing the loss of earning capacity, the reference has to be made to Schedule-I under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. 14. In the present case, there is a permanent disablement of right leg and amputation of the right leg below knee was recommended and the permanent disability in relation to right lower limb has been assessed at 90%, whereas the total disability of whole body has been assessed at 32%. Thus the loss of earning capacity in this case has to be assessed at cent-percent if this formula is taken into consideration. It may be noticed that the evidence was brought on record to show that the claimant was earning Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. three thousands) per month by sale of milk. Even if the statement of the claimant in toto is not believed, it could safely be concluded that she was earning a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) per month. If this income is taken into consideration, the compensation payable to the claimant would come to Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rs. 1000 x 12 x 15 = 1,80,000/-). Thus, the claimant is held entitled to Rs. 1,80,000/- for the loss of earning. In addition thereto, she would be entitled to Rs. 13,000/- (Rs. thirteen thousand) on account of loss of income for 52 weeks. Thus the compensation payable to her for loss of income is assessed at Rs. 1,93,000/- (Rs. 1000 x 12 x 15 = 1,80,000/-). Thus, the claimant is held entitled to Rs. 1,80,000/- for the loss of earning. In addition thereto, she would be entitled to Rs. 13,000/- (Rs. thirteen thousand) on account of loss of income for 52 weeks. Thus the compensation payable to her for loss of income is assessed at Rs. 1,93,000/- (Rs. one lac ninety three thousand). In addition thereto, she is also held entitled to the expenditure incurred by her with regard to taxi fare as assessed by the learned Tribunal i.e. Rs. 10,566/- (Rs. ten thousand five hundred sixty six) and medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 6,131/- (Rs. six thousand one hundred thirty one). However, keeping in view the fact that the claimant was still under treatment, another sum of Rs. 65,000/- (Rs. sixty five thousand) also deserves to be granted to her towards future treatment and travelling expenses. Thus, the total compensation payable to her comes to Rs. 2,74,697/- which can be rounded off to Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rs. two lac eighty thousand). Consequently, the findings on issue No. 2 are, accordingly, modified and it is held that the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rs. two lacs eighty thousand) on all counts. She would also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till realisation. The liability of the respondents shall be joint and several. Appeal allowed.