Judgment : N. Kirubakaran, J. This is a case of an unfortunate young man, who lost his leg in the accident, who filed the appeal against the award dated 24. 2005 passed by the Tribunal for enhancement. 2. As far as the appeal is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred and who was negligent and caused the accident in which the appellant sustained injury. The appellant sustained injury in the accident took place on 211. 2000, when the first respondent Corporation driver rash and negligently dashed against a parked lorry. The appellant who was traveling as a passenger in the bus sustained grievous injury. The appellant sustained serious injuries in the head, chest and left leg. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Erode and thereafter in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore between 30.11.2001 and 212. 2001. Two operations were done on 12. 2001 and 112. 2001. The left leg below the ankle was amputated and skingrafting was done. Hence he claimed compensation. 3. The case of the appellant is that he was employed as a tailor in Tokyo Company, Triupur and was earning about Rs.5,000/- per month and as a proof of which, Exhibit A-11 was filed before the Tribunal. The accident caused permanent disability of 70%, which was proved by Exhibit P-18 (Disability Certificate) before the Tribunal. 4. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.80,000 for 70% permanent disability, Rs.30,000/ towards pain and sufferings, Rs.39,644/- towards medical bills, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment in all amounting to Rs.1,64,644/-. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no amount was given under the head ‘for loss of earning capacity’. According to him, the loss of income should be arrived at based on appellant’s monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, which was proved by Exhibit P-11. If Rs.5,000/- is taken as monthly income, after deducting 1/3 for personal expenses, the annual income would be Rs.40,000/- (total annual income Rs.60,000/-). According to the counsel, as the appellant was aged about 20 years at the time of accident, the proper multiplier to be adopted according to the Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act is 17. If the multiplier 17 is applied, the loss of income would be Rs.6,80,000/-. According to the counsel, as the appellant was aged about 20 years at the time of accident, the proper multiplier to be adopted according to the Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act is 17. If the multiplier 17 is applied, the loss of income would be Rs.6,80,000/-. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding Rs.6,80,000/- towards loss of income, inspite of evidence available on record. He further contended that P.W.3., Doctor examined on the side of the appellant, deposed that Rs.40,000/- was required for the purpose of fixing artificial leg. However, without considering these facts and evidence in proper perspective, the Tribunal failed to award any amount for future treatment also. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud and Others(2008) 2 MLJ 865 : (2008) 1 TNMAC 43 (SC) and contended that the loss of earning capacity was considered and amount was awarded in this regard by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Based on the said decision, the counsel submitted that the appellant is entitled to compensation towards loss of future income, as he could not do work as Tailor, because of amputation of the leg. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the amount already granted by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same need not be enhanced. 8. There is no dispute with regard to the monthly income earned by the victim at the time of accident as it was proved by Exhibit A-11. An young man, who was working as Tailor in a Company, lost his leg, naturally his future prospects would be affected and his matrimonial prospects are adversely affected. Hence, his enjoyment of life is bleak and in the present scenario, no one would come forward to give his daughter to a person, who lost his one of his legs. Moreover, his earning capacity as tailor is affected by the loss of his leg and he would not be able to work, if he had leg. He has to lead a miserable and crippled life. Apart from that, the society is not receiving and treating the handicapped person properly inspite of many legislations, which is a sad state of affair for which we have to hang our heads in shame. He has to lead a miserable and crippled life. Apart from that, the society is not receiving and treating the handicapped person properly inspite of many legislations, which is a sad state of affair for which we have to hang our heads in shame. The above said factors are relevant factors, which are required to be considered for determining just, fair and reasonable of compensation. 9. No amount of compensation can restore the lost limb of the appellant. The Act provides for payment of “Just Compensation” under Section 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Another v. Jasbir Kaur and Others AIR 2003 SC 3696 : (2003) 7 SCC 484 at paragraph No. 7, speaks about what is just compensation and the same is extracted as follows: “7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense “damages” which in turn appears to it to be “just and reasonable”. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be “just” and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be “just” compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the back-ground of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the back-ground of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression “which appears to it to be just” a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just.” 10. In the case in Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh gaud and Others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, a driver sustained (injury in his legs and suffered 45% permanent disability. Tribunal awarded Rs. 72,000/- which was confirmed by the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, nothing that no amount was given for loss of earning capacity, awarded Rs. 2,59,200/- in that regard. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment are extracted as follows at p. 866 of MLJ: “8. We find substance in the submission put forth by the counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation towards Loss of Future Income. After the fracture of tibia, it is doubtful if the appellant can even drive again. Even if he pursues some other vocation, he would not be able to earn as much as he is earning now. The Disability suffered by the appellant would surely reduce his earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant is required to be compensated for the Loss of Earning due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 9. Taking into consideration the present income of the appellant as Rs. 4,000/- per month, and the Permanent Disability of 45% suffered by him, we are of the view that the capacity of the appellant to earn in future would be reduced by Rs. 1,800/- per month approximately. If 1/3rd is deducted towards miscellaneous expenses, the loss of income comes to Rs. 1,200/- per month which, in turn, comes to Rs. 14,400/- per annum. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident. 1,800/- per month approximately. If 1/3rd is deducted towards miscellaneous expenses, the loss of income comes to Rs. 1,200/- per month which, in turn, comes to Rs. 14,400/- per annum. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident. Taking the multiplier to be 18 (as per Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act), the total loss of income comes to Rs. 2,59,200/-.” 11. To do theleast day to day activities, the appellant requires artificial limb for which he is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the evidence of P.W.3, Doctor, who deposed about the cost of artificial limb. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sapna v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another (2008) 7 SCC 613 : (2008) 6 MLJ 124, awarded amount for future treatment. In that case, twelve year old girl injured in the accident causing 90% disability in her left leg. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 82,569/- as against the claim of Rs. 6,45,000/-. On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the injuries, awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- towards loss of income and Rs. 75,000/- towards future treatment. Paragraphs 8, 13 and 14 of the judgment read as follows at p. 125 and 127 of MLJ: “8. The principles governing a claim petition for assessing the damages in case of bodily injury suffered is that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal should consider all relevant factors so as to enable the insured to be put in the same position as if he had not sustained any injury. The principle of restitution in integrum may be applied in a case of this nature. Pecuniary loss and nonpecuniary loss are required to be pressed under certain heads. So far as the pecuniary loss is concerned, the same can be ascertained. What is require to be done is a balancing act by awarding such sum which, on the one hand, shall take care of the loss suffered by the claimant for the present time and future pecuniary benefits and, on the other, pecuniary advantages which from whatever source comes to them by reason of such injuries. So far as non-pecuniary loss is concerned, the same has to be assessed broadly under certain heads, namely, damages for physical pain, mental suffering, etc. So far as non-pecuniary loss is concerned, the same has to be assessed broadly under certain heads, namely, damages for physical pain, mental suffering, etc. besides the amount spent on medical treatment, if any. 13. What would be the genuine and reasonable expenditure likely to be incurred by the appellant towards her future treatment is not borne out from the records. It would require serious consideration for the purpose of award of damages, when a person becomes completely. Incapable to do any work and virtually has no enjoyment for life, the same form relevant factors and, thus, requires consideration for the purpose of determining a fair and reasonable amount of compensation. 14. It has not been disputed that future treatment for the appellant would be necessary. If future treatment is necessary, some provision should be made therefor. In absence of any clear-cut estimate, we are inclined to award a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- under the said head. She may require another operation. She may require to be provided with an artificial limb. We, direct accordingly.” 12. The appellant proved that he sustained 70% permanent disability and Exhibit P-18, disability certificate and Exhibit P-18 and 21 proved the same. P.W.3 also deposed about disability at 70%. The appellant was under treatment as in-patient from 30.11.2001 to 212. 2001, where he underwent to surgeries. His left leg below knee was amputated. In Asraf Ali v. Naveen Hotels Ltd. and Another (2009) 1 TNMAC 40 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances held that in computing the amount of compensation, the Court may in a given case take the benefit of structured formula as envisaged in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence. Based on monthly income of the appellant, the loss of income works out to 5,000 X 12 X 17 X 2/3 X 70/100 = 4,76,000/-. As per the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- towards loss of future income. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- is awarded towards loss of future income and the sum of Rs. 80,000/- awarded towards disability is deleted as otherwise amount to double compensation. As far as the future treatment is concerned, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- for fixing artificial limb. 4,76,000/- towards loss of future income. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- is awarded towards loss of future income and the sum of Rs. 80,000/- awarded towards disability is deleted as otherwise amount to double compensation. As far as the future treatment is concerned, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- for fixing artificial limb. Since, there was no challenge to the amounts awarded on the other headings, the same are confirmed. 13. The Tribunal awarded 9% interest on the award amount. However, taking into consideration the facts of the case and also the present rate of interest, the interest is reduced to 8%. Hence, the appellant is entitled to get 8% of interest on the award amount from the date of the petition till the realisation of the amount. Accordingly, the award is modified as under: For future loss of income Rs. 4,76,000/- For future treatment Rs. 40,000/- For pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/- For medical bills Rs. 39,644/- For transportation Rs. 10,000/- For nutrition Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 6,00,644/- 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award of the tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,64,644/- to Rs. 6,00,644/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of the petition till the realisation of the amount. 15. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest and cost before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the Tribunal is directed to pay to the claimant within one week thereafter. 16. In the above terms, the appeal is partly allowed and there will be no order as to cost. Appeal partly allowed.