JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S.K. Dutta, appearing for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. P. Gautam, appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Dutta that the claimant-petitioner lost his right leg in the accident. It was amputated over knee-joint and he has become permanently disabled forever. He was aged 35 years and his monthly income was Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousand) from a tong shop. 3. The Tribunal awarded compensation taking into consideration his monthly income to the tune of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), though the petitioner adduced oral evidence that his monthly income was Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousand). Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation taking into consideration the monthly income of the claimant-petitioner as Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousand). 4. The next argument advanced by learned counsel is that the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards mental and physical shock and towards loss of amenities of life. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Gautam has submitted that the Tribunal awarded compensation taking into consideration the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1,000/-(rupees one thousand), since there was no definite evidence about income. He has further submitted that the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,000/- (rupees eight thousand) towards pain and sufferings and the claimant-petitioner is not entitled to compensation on any other count. 6. On perusal of the claim-petition and evidence on record, I find that the claimant-petitioner stated his monthly income as Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousand) from the source of business and he stated that he used to maintain a tong shop at Gourangatilla. 7. A tong shop means a very small shop with limited items of ordinary articles and what was the capital of the shop and profit thereof, has not been elaborated. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal applied guesswork and fixed the monthly income as Rs.1,000/-(rupees one thousand), which seems to be not abnormally of lower side at the relevant point of time, and therefore, I find no reason either to interfere in the finding in absence of any cogent evidence to arrive at a contrary finding. Regarding special damages caused to the claimant petitioner, I find, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.8,000/-(rupees eight thousand), which is abnormally of lower side. 8. Admittedly, the claimant-petitioner lost his right leg. He was aged 35 years, that means, was a young man. Regarding special damages caused to the claimant petitioner, I find, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.8,000/-(rupees eight thousand), which is abnormally of lower side. 8. Admittedly, the claimant-petitioner lost his right leg. He was aged 35 years, that means, was a young man. He suffered tremendous mental and physical shock, while he lost his right leg in the accident above knee-joint. He was entitled to compensation for pain and sufferings and for loss of amenities of life. He was also entitled to compensation for the damages towards loss of expectation of life as well as for inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress for the rest of his life. As I find, the Tribunal did not consider at all those factors and the award of compensation of Rs.8,000/-(rupees eight thousand) only was absolutely inadequate. 9. Considering all those factors, I grant a further amount of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) as compensation to the appellant. The amount should be paid by the respondent - Insurance Company within 45(forty five) days from today, failing which it shall carry interest @12% per annum. 10. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of with modification of award to the extent as stated above. 11. A copy of the order may be furnished to learned counsel of both side for compliance. 12. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this order.