Judgment 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award dated 18-12-2002 in MVOP No.1369/1999 on the file of III Additional District Judge-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short, "the Tribunal"). The claimant in the O.P. filed this appeal feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. I have heard Sri K.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. There is no representation for the respondents. The appellant, who at the relevant time was working as Grade-II Telugu Pundit, in Zilla Parishad High School, Visakhapatnam, while proceeding on his scooter AAS 1031 on 2-12-1996 from Government Treasury to his school, was hit by tipper bearing registration No.AP 31 T 5873, coming in the opposite direction, on the front portion of his scooter. The said tipper is owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. The appellant and the pillion rider fell down due to the impact. Crime No.124/96 was registered under Section 338 IPC. The appellant sustained fracture of his left leg besides other injuries all over his body. He was admitted in Amrutha Nursing Home, Gajuwaka where he was operated upon and discharged from the hospital on 20-12-1996. The appellant is stated to have continued to take the treatment as out-patient till 25-4-1997 and was readmitted in Gayatri Nursing Home on 25-4-1997 where a second surgery was conducted during which plate fixation and bone grafting was done. The appellant is stated to have remained as in-patient till 20-5-1997. The appellant has claimed Rs.3,00,000/-towards compensation under the following heads : For special damages: (Loss of earnings of salary from 2-12-1996 to 22-4-1997) Rs. 27,086-00 Transport to hospital Rs. 22,644-00 Extra nourishment Rs. 20,925-00 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs. 10,000-00 Compensation for continuing permanent disability Rs.1,63,345-00 Loss of earning power Rs. 5,000-00 ------------------- Rs.3,00,000-00 =========== (However the total of above amounts comes to Rs.2,49,000/-) only) In support of his claim, the appellant has examined himself as PW-1 and Dr.M.Ambedkar as PW-2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-16. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and after deducting a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards no fault liability, it has awarded Rs.1,15,000/-under different heads which are as under : (a) Compensation under the head injury Rs. 30,000-00 (b) Compensation under the head shock, pain and Suffering Rs. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and after deducting a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards no fault liability, it has awarded Rs.1,15,000/-under different heads which are as under : (a) Compensation under the head injury Rs. 30,000-00 (b) Compensation under the head shock, pain and Suffering Rs. 20,000-00 (c) Compensation under the head medical, hospital, extra nourishment, transport, attendants and incidental charges Rs. 60,000-00 (d) Compensation under the head group of heads 'loss of amenities of life, loss of prospects of Life, loss of opportunities of life, shortened Expectation of life and social disability Rs. 30,000-00 -------------------Rs.1,40,000-00 LESS: Compensation awarded under the principle of no fault liability Rs. 25,000-00 -------------------- Rs.1,15,000-00 ============ Sri K.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly urged two points, namely, that even though the second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") may not per se apply to claims made under Section 166 of the Act, still the same can be adopted as a basis for computing loss of earnings in case of non-fatal accidents. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment in Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another ( (2009) 13 SCC 422 ) in support of his submission. He has further argued that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not compensating the appellant for loss of leave of 109 days during which period he was hospitalized. With respect to the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the second Schedule to the Act, which is intended to be a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis in certain cases of death or permanent disablement, is made applicable to the claims under Section 163-A of the Act. In Reshma Kumari (1 supra), while dealing with this provision, the Supreme Court held that the multiplier mentioned in the second Schedule although in a given case may be taken to be a guide, the same is not decisive. In the present case, the appellant was a permanent employee working as a Teacher in Zilla Parishad High School. It is not his pleaded case that on account of the accident, he has lost his employment or that there was reduction in his salary. In the present case, the appellant was a permanent employee working as a Teacher in Zilla Parishad High School. It is not his pleaded case that on account of the accident, he has lost his employment or that there was reduction in his salary. Therefore, in strict sense, even if the second Schedule is to be adopted as a guide, the appellant cannot claim that the formula prescribed therein can be taken as a basis to assess the loss of income as no such loss of income has resulted on account of the injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the nature of injury and as noted above, has awarded Rs.30,000/-under this head. PW-2, the Doctor, deposed that the appellant has suffered one major fracture, one minor fracture besides lacerations and abrasions and that the left lower limb, though physically present, is, for all practical purposes, like an amputated limb. Having noted this opinion, this Court has directed personal appearance of the appellant in order to test the veracity of the opinion of the Doctor. Today, the appellant is physically present and had shown the area where the injury was caused. The very sight of the injury, which is 14 years old now, would clearly reveal its gravity. As rightly opined by the Doctor, the appellant does not appear to be in a position to use his left leg as a normal person does. He is found to be using a support for walking. This Court has observed a huge cavity at the place of injury suggesting that the muscle has not grown as a result of which the leg has lost its normal utility. This Court is thus convinced that the accident has left a trail of devastation in the appellant's life. Though there would not have been tangible loss of income, thanks to the permanent nature of employment of the appellant, the travails of suffering he would have undergone on account of such a serious injury at almost his prime age of 45 years, can very well be imagined. In my opinion, the appellant is certainly entitled to a far higher compensation for the nature of the injury he has suffered than the sum of Rs.30,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. In my opinion, the appellant is certainly entitled to a far higher compensation for the nature of the injury he has suffered than the sum of Rs.30,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Even the enhancement of compensation would not adequately compensate the appellant for the sense of deprivation of full utility of the important limb of his body being suffered by him all through his rest of life apart from enormous extra efforts needed to be put in by him to attend to his normal activities. However, as a solace to the appellant, this Court feels that he is entitled to at least another sum of Rs.30,000/-under this head. As regards the second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation for the leave of 109 days availed by him, I find force in the submission. The Tribunal observed that no evidence has been placed by the appellant to show that he has applied for leave either on loss of full pay or half pay. This approach of the Tribunal overlooks the fact that even if the appellant has received full salary during the leave period, it had obviously resulted in depletion of his earned leave credit. The leave which he was forced to avail, perhaps, would have been encashed towards earned leave encashment, which facility is available to every employee of the Government or local bodies. For no fault on his part, the appellant was forced to avail the said leave which the respondents are liable to compensate. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to the salary of 109 days during which period he availed his leave. For the above mentioned reasons, the award of the Tribunal is modified by holding that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/-as compensation under the head 'injury' and salary for 109 days. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is confirmed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.