Judgment ( 1. ) THESE two appeals have been filed against the common order dated 26th June, ,2006, passed in claim case No 54/2005. One appeal has been filed by the State Government with regard to quantum of. compensation and another appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. ( 2. ) CLAIMANT Sitaram Sahu had been working at the relevant time in the Home Guard Police as constable on 7th August, 2004 at about 2. 00 p. m. he had been driving a jeep bearing registration No. MP.-03-1121 and going from bhind to Gwalior. At Kendriya Vidyalaya, Near air Force Station the jeep was dashed by the unknown vehicle. In the aforesaid accident right hand of the claimant had been chopped off:. Report of the accident was lodged at the police station. Two operations were performed of the claimant at Madhav Dispensary,gwalior. ( 3. ) CLAIMANT filed claim application claiming / total compensation of Rs. 12,40,000/ -. Tribunal has held that right hand of the claimant was imputed and after accident his services were terminated from Home Guard. Claims Tribunal had further held that the jeep was of the ownership of the State Government of Police department and awarded total compensation of Rs. 52,000/ -. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the claimant has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has not assessed disability of the claimant properly and less compensation awarded, contrary to this learned Counsel for the State government has submitted that the claimant had been driving the jeep without permission of the affairs of department. Hence department is not liable to pay compensation. ( 5. ) CLAIMANT in his statement before the tribunal stated that at the relevant time he was working as constable in Home Guard. There is no permanent post of Home Guard. After accident his service has been terminated. He further stated that on 7th August, 2004, he he had been driving jeep bearing registration no. M. P.-03-1121 an unknown vehicle at around 2. 00 p. m. dashed the jeep and in the aforesaid accident he received injury in his right hand and his right hand has been imputed in JH Hospital from above elbow. He further stated hat at the relevant time he had been getting monthly salary of 2,500/- and after that he had become unemployed. 00 p. m. dashed the jeep and in the aforesaid accident he received injury in his right hand and his right hand has been imputed in JH Hospital from above elbow. He further stated hat at the relevant time he had been getting monthly salary of 2,500/- and after that he had become unemployed. In his cross-examination ,he stated that he was on duty when he was driving vehicle and he came to drop one Ram Prasad. Dr. Sameer Gupta who was working at JH Hospital, Gwalior in his deposition stated that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident and his right hand was imputed above elbow. ( 6. ) RETD. Deputy Superintendent of Police mr. Munalal Tyagi who Was working at the relevant time stated that the duty of the claimant was assigned on jeep bearing registration No. M. P--03-1121 for driving the jeep. He further stated that the claimant had been driving the jeep when the accident occurred. ( 7. ) FROM the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the claimant had been driving the jeep at the relevant time and in the aforesaid accident his right hand above elbow had been imputed. ( 8. ) HONble Supreme Court reported in Pratap narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another 1976 ACJ 141 :1976 TAC 348 with regard to disability of the carpenter whose left arm above elbow was amputated has held as under: "it has not been disputed before us that the injury in question was caused to the respondent by an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the injury resulted in amputation of his left arm at the elbow it has however been argued that the injury did not result in permanent total disablement of the respondent, and that Commissioner committed a gross error of law in faking that view as there was only partial disablement within the meaning of section 2 (1) (g) of the Act which should have been deemed to have resulted in permanent partial disablement of the nature referred to in Item 3 of Part II of schedule 1 of the Act. This argument has been advanced on the ground that the amputation was from 8 "from tip of acromion and less that 4 1/2" below tip of olecranon. This argument has been advanced on the ground that the amputation was from 8 "from tip of acromion and less that 4 1/2" below tip of olecranon. As will appear there is no force in this argument. The expression "total disablement" has been defined in Section 2 (1 ) (1) of the Act as follows: (1) "total disablement" means such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature as incapacitates workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement. It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent and the question for consideration is that whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all wok which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded its finding as follows: "the injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession. By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only this is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to Item 3 of Part II of Schedule I, because it was not the appellants case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to lees than 4 1/2" below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot therefore be allowed to be set up on facts which have not been admitted or established. " ( 9. ) FROM the above law laid down by the honble Supreme Court. It is clear that there is 100% permanent disability to the appellant. Appellant was working as Home Guard and he himself stated that he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. Hence his annual income comes to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 after holding the age of the appellant 35 to 36 years. In my opinion, that is proper after applying the multiplier of 16 the total loss of income comes to Rs. 4,80,000/ -. 2,500/- per month. Hence his annual income comes to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 after holding the age of the appellant 35 to 36 years. In my opinion, that is proper after applying the multiplier of 16 the total loss of income comes to Rs. 4,80,000/ -. Tribunal has granted Rs. 25,000/- on other heads, in my opinion, that would be just and proper after adding aforesaid amount. Appellant is entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 5,05,000/ -. Tribunal has already granted compensation of rs. 2,52,000/- to the claimant, hence claimant will get enhanced amount of compensation of rs. 2,53,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs Fifty Three thousand only) Amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the application before the Claims Tribunal upto realization. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost.