JUDGMENT : G.P. Mittal, J. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 2,41,861/- awarded in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 07.04.1995. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by the First Respondent, which was owned by the Second Respondent and was insured with the Respondent No.3. During inquiry it was claimed that the Appellant was running an Atta Chakki and had an income of Rs. 3000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence as to the Appellant's income, the Claims Tribunal took minimum wages as the Appellant's income and factored 30% of the Appellant's income to be his loss on account of injuries. The compensation awarded can be tabulated hereunder :- Loss of Income Rs. 1,41,861/- Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Pain & Suffering Rs. 30,000/- Loss of future amenities Rs. 50,000/- Special Diet Rs. 5,000/- Conveyance Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 2,41,861/- 2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, the owner or the insurer, I am not to go into the finding of negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Section 166 envisages grant of just and fair compensation to the victims of the motor accident. 4. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , the Supreme Court observed that the determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales. At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimants, to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in, before the accident and not to make a fortune out of the misfortune that has befallen them. 5. In Raj Kumar Vs. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimants, to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in, before the accident and not to make a fortune out of the misfortune that has befallen them. 5. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Supreme Court brought out the difference between permanent disability and functional disability resulting into loss of earning capacity. Thus, compensation on account of loss of earning capacity has to be granted in accordance to the nature of the job undertaken by the victim of road accident. In this case, the Appellant's statement that he was running an Atta Chakki was not disputed in cross-examination. It was only the income from the business of Atta Chakki which was challenged (to which I would advert to a little later). An owner of a small Atta Chakki has to perform minimal jobs of lifting small gunny bags, Kanastars for pouring the same into the Chakki. He has to climb on the Chakki for adjusting the quality of Atta as per the requirement of the customers. Thus an amputation of his right lower limb below knee disabled him in performing all these jobs for which he would have to employ a person. In any case, he could only perform the accounting and supervisory work after having suffered amputation of his right lower limb. Therefore, the loss of earning capacity to my mind, would be at least 40%. 6. Coming to the Appellant's income; in his affidavit the Appellant testified that at the time of filing the petition he had an income of Rs. 3000/- per month. It is true that at the time of his cross-examination in the Court he admitted that he was earning Rs. 4000-5000/- from the same business of Atta Chakki yet it cannot be lost sight of that during the course of these 12 years his income would have substantially increased if he had not suffered an amputation of his right leg. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no loss of earning capacity on account of amputation of his right leg. In the absence of any rebuttal and even otherwise it can be assumed that a person running an Atta Chakki in the year 1995 would earn at least Rs. 3000/- per month. Taking his annual income to be Rs. 36,000/-. In the absence of any rebuttal and even otherwise it can be assumed that a person running an Atta Chakki in the year 1995 would earn at least Rs. 3000/- per month. Taking his annual income to be Rs. 36,000/-. The loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 2,44,800/- ( Rs. 3000x12x40%x14). 7. In the case of an amputation of the leg above the knee in Govind Yadav Vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 683 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted a sum of Rs. 1.5 lac towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1.5 lac towards loss of amenities in life and loss of marriage prospects. In Govind Yadav (supra) the accident took place in the year 2004. In the instant case, the accident took place in the year 1995. Moreover, in Govind Yadav (supra) the injured was a bachelor. Thus compensation towards pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and loss of amenities is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-. The Appellant obtained his treatment from the Government hospital. In the absence of any bills being produced, the Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of expenses incurred on medical, treatment, accessories implants etc., which I would maintain. Although, no evidence was produced by the Appellant, yet I would award him a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing of an artificial limb considering that he was aged 26 years at the time of the accident. The compensation awarded by this Court is tabulated hereunder :- Loss of Earning capacity Rs. 2,44,800/- Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Artificial limb Rs. 25,000/- Pain & Suffering Rs. 50,000/- Loss of future amenities Rs. 75,000/- Special Diet Rs. 5,000/- Conveyance Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 4,14,800/- 8. The overall compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,41,861/- to Rs. 4,14,800/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,72,939/- shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the enhanced amount in this Court. 9. The Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks from today. 10. Since the accident took place in the year 1995, hence the compensation awarded should be released to the Appellant/Claimant forthwith on deposit. 11. Statutory amount shall also be refunded. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.