GANGELE, J. ( 1 ) THE claimant-appellant has filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 1. 11. 1999 passed by the Ninth motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 143 of 1997. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 13. 9. 1997 the claimant injured was going along with his bhabhi on bicycle. Near kishanbagh Tiraha one scooter No. MP 07-K 5374 dashed against bicycle. Due to the aforesaid accident, he suffered serious injuries in his right leg and was admitted in J. A. Hospital and thereafter Chandak hospital and Research Institute. Ultimately, his right leg was amputated above knee level. F. I. R. was also lodged at the Police station Bahodapur. The claimant mentioned his age 25 years. Claims Tribunal found that driver of the scooter was driving the scooter rashly and negligently. The scooter was insured with insurance company, respondent No. 3 and due to the aforesaid rash and negligent driving the accident occurred and right leg of claimant was amputated from above knee level and awarded a total compensation of Rs, 1,49,581 (rupees one lakh forty-nine thousand five hundred and eighty-one) on the following heads: ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error of law in calculating the loss of future earnings of the appellant. He further submitted that appellant-claimant suffered 100 per cent permanent disability due to amputation of right leg. He further submitted that for other heads, the Tribunal has not awarded a proper compensation. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: (1) Deepak Kumar v. Labh Singh, 2007 (1) DMP 93 (MP); (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjaneya Tobacco Company, 2007 ACJ 2578 (AP); (3) Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Kumar Singh, 2006 ACJ 1132 (MP); and (4) Kaluram Rathore v. Neelam Chand Kirar, 2004 (2) TAC 705 (MP ). ( 4 ) CONTRARY to this, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. He further submitted that permanent disability has to be calculated as per the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and as per the Act, it is near about 50 per cent. ( 4 ) CONTRARY to this, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. He further submitted that permanent disability has to be calculated as per the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and as per the Act, it is near about 50 per cent. ( 5 ) FROM the facts stated above and the findings of the Tribunal, it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist and due to aforesaid negligent driving, the right leg of the claimant-appellant has been amputated above knee level. ( 6 ) A report of the accident was also lodged at Police Station Bahodapur. The claimant was admitted in J. A. Hospital, gwalior and thereafter, he was admitted to chandak Hospital and Research Institute, gwalior on 13. 9. 1997 and discharged on 1. 10. 1997. At that hospital his right leg above knee level was amputated. Annexure p10 is a copy of the discharge ticket. In the discharge ticket the age of the appellant has been mentioned as 26 years. Claimant also filed a disability certificate issued by the district Medical Officer of orthopaedics department. In the aforesaid certificate the disability of the appellant has been shown as 90 per cent. ( 7 ) THE appellant in his deposition stated that when he was cycling on his bicycle along with his bhabhi, who was sitting on back carrier, the cycle was dashed by the scooter No. MP 07-K 5374 at Kishanbagh tiraha. He was under medical treatment for near about 3 months. He further stated that he used to do business of selling milk by purchasing it from the village and used to earn Rs. 200 per day. After accident he could not do the work of selling milk because his right leg has been amputated. Dr. Abhay Chandak, who treated the appellant, has been examined as witness No. 5, deposed that in order to save life of appellant his right leg above knee level was amputated and he suffered 80 per cent disability due to the aforesaid amputation because he could not cycle the bicycle or carry the milk cans. Nobody has been examined on behalf of the insurance company. One ratiram has also been examined in support of the appellant as witness No. 1. He also deposed that appellant was dashed by the scooter. Nobody has been examined on behalf of the insurance company. One ratiram has also been examined in support of the appellant as witness No. 1. He also deposed that appellant was dashed by the scooter. He also deposed that appellant used to sell milk. He used to purchase milk from the village and sell it in the market. Tribunal has not given any finding with regard to loss of earnings of the appellant. ( 8 ) FROM the above evidence and documents on record the age of the claimant, in my opinion, can be held as 26 years and as per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the proper multiplier for 26 years is 18'. However, multiplier of 17' would be just and proper to be applied. ( 9 ) WITH regard to income of appellant, it is stated in his deposition that he was earning Rs. 2,000 per month by selling milk. Other witness produced by appellant, witness No. 1 has also supported the statement of the appellant. Insurance company had other respondents did not adduce any evidence with regard to earnings of the appellant. They simply controverted the fact of earnings in written statement. ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter, it can easily be held that the earnings of the appellant was Rs. 2,000 per month, i. e. , rs. 24,000 per annum and after applying the multiplier of 17 total loss of earnings comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000 (rupees four lakh eight thousand ). However, the appellant is not entitled for total loss of earnings. ( 11 ) THE next question is that how much disability has been suffered by appellant? looking to the fact that his right leg has been amputated above knee level the doctor opined that the appellant has suffered 80 per cent disability and the certificate filed by the appellant with regard to the disability issued by the District Medical officer, his disability has been shown as 90 per cent. ( 12 ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shankarappa Kubbanna Kattimani v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. ( 12 ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shankarappa Kubbanna Kattimani v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. , 2007 ACJ 2279 (SC), which is a case of coolie, whose one arm was amputated has held that disability caused to the coolie was 80 per cent because he could not do his work after the amputation of one arm, which is as under: " (3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the High Court committed gross error in ignoring the fact that the claimant was a coolie doing manual labour for earning his livelihood. As a result of the accident his one arm was amputated which was almost total disability for earning. In such a situation, to reduce the quantum of compensation by treating disability at 50 per cent was uncalled for. The Tribunal has in fact assessed the disability at 80 per cent. " ( 13 ) THE same principle can be applied in the present case also because the appellant, who was selling milk cannot do his work in future after amputation of his right leg above knee level. Hence, I hold that appellant suffered 80 per cent disability. In such circumstances, total loss of earnings to appellant would come to Rs. 4,08,000 x 80/100 = Rs. 3,26,400 (rupees three lakh twenty-six thousand and four hundred ). ( 14 ) THE next question is that what compensation on account of other heads is to be awarded to the appellant to which he is entitled for? ( 15 ) THE Hon'ble Apex Court in case of nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12 (SC), has quoted a judgment in Lim poh Choo v. Camden and Islington Area health Authority, 1979 ACJ 362 (CA, england), where the Lord Denning, M. R. has held with regard to compensation on account of personal damages for injury as under: ". . . The practice is now established and cannot be gainsaid that, in the personal injury cases, the award of damages is assessed under four main heads: first, special damages in the shape of money actually expended; second, cost of future nursing and attendance and the medical expenses; third, pain and suffering and loss of amenities; fourth, loss of future earnings. . The practice is now established and cannot be gainsaid that, in the personal injury cases, the award of damages is assessed under four main heads: first, special damages in the shape of money actually expended; second, cost of future nursing and attendance and the medical expenses; third, pain and suffering and loss of amenities; fourth, loss of future earnings. " ( 16 ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court further quoted in para 22 another judgment of lord Parke, B. with regard to loss of leg to an agriculturist as under: " (22) To an agriculturist the loss of leg vitally affects not only his working capacity but also his livelihood. In this context, Lord Denning, M. R. in Lim Poh choo v. Camden and Islington Area health Authority, 1979 ACJ 362 (CA, england), quoted with approval the observations of Parke, B. , which are as under: 'scarcely any sum could compensate a labouring man for the loss of a limb, yet you do not in such a case give him enough to maintain him for life. . . You are not to consider the value of existence as if you were bargaining with an annuity office. . . I advice you to take a reasonable view of the case and give what you consider fair compensation'. " ( 17 ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court further in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC), has held as under: " (12) Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis, 'and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master' since there are so often many imponderables. In every case 'it is the overall picture that matters', and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. " ( 18 ) CONSIDERING the above principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court, in my opinion, the claimant is entitled for compensation on other heads as under: towards medical expenses Rs. 18,581 as awarded by the Tribunal, for pain and suffering, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in case of Madhya Pradesh State road Trans. Corpn. v. Kumar Singh, 2006 acj 1132 (MP), has awarded Rs. 30,000 to an agriculturist on account of amputation of his right leg. Hence, the appellant is also entitled for Rs. 30,000 (rupees thirty thousand) for pain and suffering. Corpn. v. Kumar Singh, 2006 acj 1132 (MP), has awarded Rs. 30,000 to an agriculturist on account of amputation of his right leg. Hence, the appellant is also entitled for Rs. 30,000 (rupees thirty thousand) for pain and suffering. It is just and proper to award Rs. 15,000 (rupees fifteen thousand) towards transportation as awarded by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State road Trans, Corpn. (supra) because the appellant was admitted for near about 20 days in hospital and after discharge from hospital he was also under the treatment of Dr. Chandak. Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs. 3,26,400 + Rs. 18,581 + Rs. 30,000 + Rs. 15,000 = Rs. 3,89,981 (rupees three lakh eighty-nine thousand nine hundred and eighty-one ). ( 19 ) THE Claims Tribunal has already awarded compensation of Rs. 1,49,581. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,89,981 -Rs. 1,49,581 = Rs. 2,40,400 (rupees two lakh forty thousand and four hundred ). ( 20 ) ACCORDINGLY, the award is modified to the extent indicated above. The liability of the respondents to pay the amount of compensation is as per the award of the tribunal. Out of enhanced compensation an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh) be kept in fixed deposit for a period of 5 years in a bank. Amount of enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent per annum-from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. ( 21 ) THE appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The award of Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated above. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.