Judgment :- 1. On 17.05.1996 at about 7.30 a.m. while the minor claimant was coming in the bicycle sitting on the carrier, near Central Workshop, a Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-25-Z-6237, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against cycle from back side, by means of which the claimant received serious injuries including crushing on his left arm. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The first respondent is owner of the lorry and the second respondent is Insurer. Hence a total sum of Rs.4,45,500/- is claimed. 2. In the counter filed by the second respondent it is stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of the cyclist who was carrying the minor claimant in the carrier and there was no fault on the part of the lorry driver. The age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, period of treatment and other aspects mentioned in the petition are denied. The claim is excessive. 3. As for grant of compensation, the appellant is very much aggrieved that the award of the Tribunal is on the lower side, in a case of amputation of left hand. The claimant was aged about 15 years at the time of accident, doing his IX standard in Chennai. He was taking treatment as in-patient from 15. 96 to 26. 06 and during the treatment his left hand was amputated leaving 4" from the shoulder. The Doctor has given disability certificate Ex.P.9, wherein he assessed that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the tune of 70%. The documents available would show that he was a scholar in foot ball game and that he had participated in various coachings organized by G.K.M. Volley Ball Club, and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-for 70% permanent disability, Rs.10,000/- for fixing artificial limb, another R.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.530/- for medical expenses and a further sum of Rs.1,000/- each towards transport expenses and extra nourishment. In total the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,62,530/-. In view of this Court, the said quantum is not adequate since the left hand has been amputated. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would garner support from a Division Bench decision of this Court in 2003 ACJ 1210 [S. Achuthan vz. In total the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,62,530/-. In view of this Court, the said quantum is not adequate since the left hand has been amputated. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would garner support from a Division Bench decision of this Court in 2003 ACJ 1210 [S. Achuthan vz. M. Gopal and another] wherein the claimant had suffered various fractures and other complications, for which an enhanced compensation of Rs.11,20,000/-has been granted. The Bench has taken into account the loss of proper marital alliance since the boy is in his tender age, definitely his marital prospects would be diminished and his marital life would appear bleak. In the said decision, for 70% permanent disability, the Court awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in 2003 ACJ 1444 [New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. K. Kartheeswaran] in which this Court while discussing about the case of an injured of 17 years on the date of accident, adopted 35 years as multiplier and awarded a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as loss of income, assessing Rs.5,000/- as monthly income. In the said case, injured suffered from permanent disability at 90% and he was school going youth. For mental agony and torture due to amputation a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-was awarded and another Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-in view of permanent disability has been granted. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would cite a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in 2005 (1) CTC 38 [United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Veluchamy and another] in which a driver suffering with disability to the tune of 49% is assessed to have earned a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, multiplier 12 was adopted. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the second respondent placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in 2005(7) Supreme 171 [The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd., v. K.I.Bindu & Ors.] wherein it is held that in a case of death of a man aged about 34 years appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 13. 8. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the second respondent placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in 2005(7) Supreme 171 [The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd., v. K.I.Bindu & Ors.] wherein it is held that in a case of death of a man aged about 34 years appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 13. 8. In the circumstances available in this case and in view of fact that the age of the boy at the time of accident was 15 years and also his permanent disability assessed at 70%, in view of amputation of his left hand, this Court is of the opinion that the proper multiplier to be adopted is 12. It is crystal clear that the amputation of the left hand has disabled him from attending any respectable profession with a profitable income. Even though, he may search for any other job or avocation, which does not require much physical labour, still the loss of left hand has woefully affected his future life and due to which he is suffering through out his life. The deformity to the physical frame could not be reconciled in terms of money, however for the purpose of compensation the Court has to bear in mind what kind of profession he would undertake in future and it may assess the monthly income to arrive at a conclusion having regard to reasonable compensation. In the personal injury cases, the Court shall not award merely taking the damages but it should grant substantial amount, which could be recorded as adequate compensation. Hence, well-settled principles have led the court to consider the materials and circumstances to assess and to award a reasonable but adequate compensation to the injured. Even though the claim petition is bereft of certain particulars on the heads of compensation, but still the Courts are empowered to grant compensation under specific heads, which could be brought under the head "Other Special Damages". 9. While other special damages are considered, the placement of the injured in the society, his educational qualification, his active involvement and participation in extra curricular activities such as sports etc., his loss of amenities, enjoyment or pleasure in the life, loss of diminishing of future prospects, shortened expectation of life, if any, and so on have also to be taken into account. 10. 10. Even though the nature of avocation which would be undertaken by the claimant could not be ascertained for the present if the accident had not taken place, he might have preferred any of the avocations from which he could earn for the livelihood for himself and his family members. In this context, this court assesses the monthly income of the claimant that could not be less than Rs.3,000/-. If a sum of Rs.1000/- which is 1/3rd, is deducted for the purpose of awarding of compensation, monthly income of Rs.2,000/- could be arrived. Therefore total loss of annual income would be Rs.24,000/-. If it is multiplied by 12, it comes to Rs.2,88,000/-. Since the permanent disability assessed by the doctor is 70%, the loss of income for 70% will be Rs.2,01,600.00. The award stands modified as follows: Permanent disability 70% on Rs.2,88,000/- is Rs.2,01,600.00 For pain and sufferings (Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/-) Rs. 50,000.00 For fixing of artificial limb awarded by Tribunal is confirmed Rs. 10,000.00 Award for Medical expenses increased to Rs. 2,000.00 For Transport expenses and Extra nourishment Rs.1,000/-each are enhanced to Rs.5,000.00 Rs. 10,000.00 For loss of prospects of marital life Rs.1,00,000.00 Total Rs.3,73,600.00 11. In fine, the appeal is partly allowed, directing the second respondent/Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.3,73,600/-(Rupees three lakh seventy three thousand and six hundred only) to the claimant along with interest @ Rs.7.5% for the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of this petition till the date of deposit, within eight weeks from the date of this Order. No costs.