JUDGMENT The respondents before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, assailed the award dated 09.01.2009 granting compensation at Rs.5,72,100/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit in favour of the sole claimant. 2. The claimant was 23 years old at the time of the accident. On 28.02.2006, the claimant was proceeding in an auto from Sankarapally to Patancheru. By about 5.45 a.m., the auto reached the outskirts of Bhanur village. In the meanwhile, the bus belonging to APSRTC bearing registration No.AP 10Z 8192 was driven in the opposite direction by its driver by name Syed Buranuddin. Statedly, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The bus hit the auto. The claimant sustained crush injury of his right leg and comminuted fracture of the right femur. The claimant was immediately admitted in the Government General Hospital, Secunderabad. His right leg was amputed below the knee level on 01.03.2006. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation at Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. He examined himself as PW.1 and examined the Doctor, who treated him as PW.2. He has exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.6. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to award compensation at Rs.5,72,000/-. This is the award that is assailed by the APSRTC. 4. The claimant was said to be doing business in vegetables. He claimed that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The petitioner sustained a comminuted fracture. The Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.20,000/-towards pain and sufferance. Where the claimant suffered comminuted fracture, perhaps it would be appropriate to grant Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards pain and sufferance. The claimant suffered amputation of the right leg below the knee level and was said to be bedridden for a period of four months. Award of compensation for loss of earning for four months at Rs.16,000/- calculated at the rate of Rs.4,000/-per month is justified. The Tribunal awarded attendant charges at Rs.3,000/-. Calculating attendant charges at Rs.1,500/-per month, it would have been just and proper to award Rs.6,000/- towards attendant charges. The claimant was granted Rs.1,500/-towards medical expenses. The medical bills under Ex.A.4 was for a sum of Rs.1,234.40 paise. Taking other medical expenses into consideration, where amputation was involved, the medical expenses could have been awarded at Rs.3,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.1,500/- towards medical expenses. 5. The claimant was granted Rs.1,500/-towards medical expenses. The medical bills under Ex.A.4 was for a sum of Rs.1,234.40 paise. Taking other medical expenses into consideration, where amputation was involved, the medical expenses could have been awarded at Rs.3,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.1,500/- towards medical expenses. 5. PW.2 certified that the claimant suffered partial permanent disability to a tune of 60%. Although the claimant was 23 years old, the Tribunal applied multiplier ‘17’ and determined partial permanent disability at Rs.4,89,600/-. It would have been more had multiplier ‘18’ as envisaged in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). 6. However, Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for APSRTC-appellants contended that the claimant is not entitled to award of compensation under other heads, as granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life. I am afraid that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation under such a head, where separate amount was awarded towards loss of amenities in the life. However, the award of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities by the Tribunal is justified. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges. Where the lower extremity is involved and the claimant was bedridden for about four months, Rs.10,000/-would have been appropriate compensation towards transport charges. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards disfiguration of right leg and Rs.10,000/- towards diminishing of marriage prospects. The award under these claims is reasonable. 7. I, therefore, consider that the award of the Tribunal is sustainable barring for the amount of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of expectancy of life. As there is no cross appeal, the question of granting further amounts towards compensation for pain and sufferance, medical expenses, attendant charges and transport charges would not arise. The order of the Tribunal, consequently, is liable to be confirmed with the sole modification of the reduction of compensation by Rs.10,000/-. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled to compensation at Rs.5,62,100/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till disposal of the suit and costs. The rest of the directions of the Tribunal are maintained. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in the appeal.