Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by claimant dissatisfied with award dated 24.10.2000 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, by which it has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,04,040/- on different heads, for the injuries sustained by him in an accident took place on 27.08.1993 and taking his permanent disability to be 35% as one of his lower limb was completely crushed from below the ankle level by truck No.RRB 1855. Learned Tribunal held it to be a case of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant to the extent of 10%. Learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,15,600/- and, after deducting 10% therefrom towards contributory negligence, and ordered for payment of Rs.1,04,040/- as compensation to the appellant, which includes the amount of Rs.35,000/- awarded on the head of permanent disability sustained by him to the extent of 35%. 2. Shri K.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for appellant, has argued that appellant was working as coolie. He used to unload the goods from trucks of various transport companies at the relevant time. While he was sleeping on footpath at 3.30 AM in the night of 27.08.1993 near Khandelwal Transport Company, driver of truck No.RRB 1855, without looking at the back side, suddenly reversed the truck and mounted the same on footpath where appellant was sleeping and, in that process, his right foot ankle was completely crushed. Learned counsel referred to statements of two doctors, namely, AW-4 Dr.M.K. Mathur and AW-5 Dr. Pradeep Goyal and argued that those doctors have proved the fact that claimant was subjected to operations for several times. AW-4 Dr. M.K. Mathur has stated that he was a member of the medical board which issued disability certificate to the claimant and found that appellant sustained permanent disability of 35% in his right lower limb. He was subjected to surgery. His foot below the ankle level has been rendered completely disabled. This fact has also been proved by AW-5 Dr. Pradeep Goyal, who has stated that the appellant was subjected to surgery for 7-8 occasions. His first surgery was started at 9.00 AM on 16.09.1993 and continued till 6.00 AM of 17th September, 1993. It was a complicated surgery and first of its kind in State of Rajasthan. It was microsurgery, wherein crushed blood veins were reconnected with each other by use of microscope. His first surgery was started at 9.00 AM on 16.09.1993 and continued till 6.00 AM of 17th September, 1993. It was a complicated surgery and first of its kind in State of Rajasthan. It was microsurgery, wherein crushed blood veins were reconnected with each other by use of microscope. He remained hospitalized for different periods between 1993 and 1995 and surgery was conducted on him for 7-8 times. Muscles and skin of one part of the body were grafted on other injured parts, which were completely crushed. In spite of the surgery, there was no movement of the ankle. The surgery was, thus, only partially successful. Learned counsel argued that because of this kind of disability, the appellant would not now be able to work as coolie and has been rendered incapable of normal functioning and his earning for the whole of life has substantially been minimized. The Tribunal has awarded a bare amount of Rs.35,000/- for pain and suffering, whereas he was subjected to number of surgeries and which fact has been proved by the two doctors. For the loss of earning capacity and pain and suffering, the appellant is entitled to be awarded much more amount than what has been awarded by learned Tribunal. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Nagarajappa vs. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited – MACD 2011 (SC) 79 = 2011(1) CCR 524 (SC), wherein, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case of coolie, who sustained disability in his one hand was described by the medical board to be 23%, accepted his disability to be 68% and on that basis awarded the compensation, which was because the Court held that when the effective help of his hand, the claimant would possibly not be able to work as a coolie. Learned counsel argued that it cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence because the appellant was sleeping on the footpath and a truck driver cannot be expected to take the truck on the foot path. A vehicle always has a rear mirror to see whether the driver could take the vehicle on reverse side or not. Learned counsel argued that it cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence because the appellant was sleeping on the footpath and a truck driver cannot be expected to take the truck on the foot path. A vehicle always has a rear mirror to see whether the driver could take the vehicle on reverse side or not. Learned counsel also cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Ramchandrappa vs. The Manager RSAI Company Limited – MACD 2011 (SC) 144, in which also the claimant suffered permanent disability to right upper leg. That was also a case of coolie and he was subjected to prolonged medical treatment and hospitalization. The Tribunal therein awarded a sum of Rs.1,13,900/-, which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs.1,33,900/-. The Supreme Court awarded additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation. Learned counsel, therefore, argued that quantum of compensation should be enhanced on all the counts. 3. Shri Rishipal Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent insurance company, opposed the appeal and argued that it was rightly held to be a case of contributory negligence. Even if the appellant was a coolie of a transport company, he was not expected to sleep on footpath in careless manner. The truck driver cannot be expected to be aware of the fact that someone would be sleeping on the footpath. Even if it is accepted that the driver took the truck on reverse side and thereby caused injuries to the appellant, it must be held that the appellant was also negligent as he was sleeping on the footpath, which was not meant for that. Learned counsel argued that at the relevant time the notified minimum wages of a labourer was only Rs.35/- per day and, keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in the year 1993 and the wages prevalent at the relevant time, award of compensation of Rs. 1,15,600/-, cannot be said to be on lower side. Learned counsel for res-pondent cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar – MACD 2011 (SC) 33 = 2011(1) CCR 71 (SC), and argued that the Supreme Court therein held that the percentile of disability should not be mechanically applied for computation of compensation. 1,15,600/-, cannot be said to be on lower side. Learned counsel for res-pondent cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar – MACD 2011 (SC) 33 = 2011(1) CCR 71 (SC), and argued that the Supreme Court therein held that the percentile of disability should not be mechanically applied for computation of compensation. It should be ascertained as to what is the extent of loss of earning capacity in terms of whole body, despite the disability in one part of the body. It is, therefore, contended that disability should be appreciated in the con-text of whole body of a person for arriving at loss of earning capacity. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 4. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. Considering the fact that appellant at relevant time was working as coolie and that he used to work even during night, it can safely be assumed that appellant must have been earning Rs.50/- per day. A coolie doing the work of loading and unloading of goods, if has lost his right lower limb in that his one ankle has been completely rendered useless, would not be able to work now as a coolie. Even then the medical board has assessed him 35% permanently disabled. The court can, therefore, proceed to assume that if he would continue to retain his working capacity upto 65% only, which implies that 1/3rd of his income would be reduced thereby and minimized because of the kind of disability he sustained. If his monthly income is assessed at Rs.1500/-, the annual income comes to Rs.18000/-. With 35% permanent disability, it can be accepted that annual loss of income to the appellant would be around to Rs.6000/-. Age of claimant at relevant time was 20 years and, therefore, multiplier that would be applicable is 17. The amount on the head of loss of income comes to Rs.1,02,000/- (6000x17). The judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar, supra, that has been relied on by learned counsel for the respondent insurance-company that percentage of permanent disability has to be assessed with reference to the whole body and exact percentage for loss of earning capacity has to be analyzed in view of the kind of disability and the nature of work that the person has been doing. 6. 6. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Ramchandrappa, supra, relied on by learned counsel for appellant, was in a case where claimant, who was a collie, received permanent physical disability of 41% to right upper limb; he was not capable of working as a coolie. He underwent prolonged treatment and hospitalization. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,13,900/-, which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs.1,33,900/-. The Supreme Court held that the interest of justice would serve if additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded to the appellant therein by way of compensation. 7. In Sri Nagarajappa, supra, wherein a coolie sustained disability in his one hand. The medical board assessed the permanent disability to be 23%. The Tribunal and the High Court assessed it to be 20%. The Supreme Court held that appellant was working as a manual labourer, for which he requires the use of both his hands. The fact that the accident has left him with one useless hand will severely affect his ability to perform his work as a coolie or any other manual work. Thus, while awarding compensation it has to be kept in mind that the appe-llant is to do manual work for the rest of his life without full use of his left hand, and this is bound to affect the quality of his work and also his ability to find work considering his disability. Hence, while computing loss of future income, the Supreme Court assessed disability to be 68%, and on that basis awarded the compensation. In a recently delivered judgment in Kumaresh vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another – MACD 2011 (SC) 153, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of amputation of right leg below knee and therein enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%, from Rs.5,48,000/- awarded by the High Court. 8. The Supreme Court in Raj Kumar, supra, has propounded the law on compensation in motor accidents claims cases resulting in disability in a comprehensive manner. In that case the Supreme Court held that where claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. In that case the Supreme Court held that where claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Tribunals should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. 9. In Sant Singh vs. Sukhdev Singh and others, MACD 2011 (SC) 77 = 2011(1) CCR 428 (SC), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the Tribunal assessed the permanent disability of the limb suffered by the injured at 60% and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,47,209. On appeal, the High Court awarded an overall enhancement of Rs.15,000/-. In that case due to injuries received in accident the left leg of the injured, who was 40 years of age at the time of the accident, got fractured below knee and both the bones of his right leg also fractured. The Supreme Court held that compensation should be awarded on the basis of the principles contained in the Second Schedule to the Act and accordingly enhanced the same to Rs.4,43,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. 10. In Urviben Chiragbhai Sheth vs. Vijaybhai Shambhubhai Joranputra and Others – MACD 2011 (SC 99) = 2011(1) CCR 543 (SC), the injured was 30 years of age at the time of accident and she claimed to be earning Rs.1500/- to Rs.1600/- per month from a business of beauty parlor at Ahmadabad and injured received 100% disability which is permanent in nature with no sign of recovery. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.6,07,000/-. The High court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court therein held that just because she is a homemaker is no reason why the courts should be miserly in fixing compensation for her. It is an accepted principle that compensation may be so assessed that the interest accruing therefrom will be sufficient for the maintenance of the family of the victim and the concept of compensation is wider than mere damages. It is an accepted principle that compensation may be so assessed that the interest accruing therefrom will be sufficient for the maintenance of the family of the victim and the concept of compensation is wider than mere damages. Holding so, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till date of realization. 11. Coming now to the case of contributory negligence on the basis that appellant was sleeping on the footpath in late hours of night, that does not mean that he can be held responsible for contributory negligence in the accident because as a coolie he used to work during night hours when heavy vehicles are permitted entry inside the city and the accident has also taken place close to the transport company where the appellant was working as coolie, therefore there was no question of holding him responsible for contributory negligent. 12. The award of Rs.35,000/- on the head of pain and suffering in a case like this where the Tribunal has found that appellant was subjected to extensive surgery on as many as three occasions and that the muscle and veins from one part of the body were taken to be grafted on his ankle, and when the doctor AW-5 Pradeep Goyal has stated that he was in fact subjected to surgery for 7-8 times between 1993 and 1995 during different periods, and that he remained hospitalized for quite some time, appears to be highly insufficient. In the facts of the present case, the appellant deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the head of pain and suffering. If the appellant was subjected to surgery for several occasions, the award of Rs.5600/- only on the head of medical expenses also cannot be justified. Thus, the amount deserves to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- cumulatively for medical expenses, nutritious diet, hospital charges, attendant, transportation etc. The amount of Rs.30,000/- for loss of future income is also towards lower side and ends of justice would be met if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded on this head. 13. The appellant is thus held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3,02,000/- (102000+100000+50000+50000) as total compensation. Ordered accordingly. The amount of Rs.30,000/- for loss of future income is also towards lower side and ends of justice would be met if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded on this head. 13. The appellant is thus held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3,02,000/- (102000+100000+50000+50000) as total compensation. Ordered accordingly. The appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. Compliance of the order be made within three months. The appeal is accordingly allowed.