M.Sathyanarayanan,J:- The appellant in C.M.A(MD)No.1511 of 2011 is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur and challenging the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured namely the claimant and the quantum of compensation, preferred C.M.A.(MD)No.1511 of 2011. 2. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur, aggrieved by the lesser quantum of compensation awarded, preferred C.M.A(MD)No.28 of 2012. 3. For the sake of convenience, the array of parties as referred to in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur, is adopted in these appeals also. 4. The facts in brief leading to the filing of these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, are as follows: (i) The claimant namely R.Karunanithi, son of V.Ramasamy, filed the above claim petition against one A.Pandian - owner of the vehicle and the appellant in C.M.A.No.1511 of 2011 (second respondent therein) - the insurer, claiming a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) on account of permanent disability suffered by him in the accident which took place on 23.11.2009 at 03.00 p.m., near Thirukampuliyur Roundana at Karur to Kovai Road. (ii) As per the claim petition, the claimant was aged about 42 years old and was eking out his livelihood as a contractor for pasting stickers on the bus bodies at Star Coaches, Karur, under the name and style 'Artman-Signs-D-Signs'. The claimant would further aver that he was getting the monthly income of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) p.m. and immediately, after the accident on 23.11.2009, he was given first aid at Amaravathi Hospital, Karur and thereafter, admitted as an inpatient at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore from 24.11.2009 to 31.12.2009 and was given treatment and his left leg, above knee, was amputated. (iii) The claimant would further state that he has also suffered grievous injuries and the treatment cost is Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) and but for the accident and on account of the accident, he became totally and permanently disabled to do any work and consequently, lost his earning capacity. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) towards compensation under the following heads: Part - I (i) Transport to Hospital - Rs. 15,000.00 (ii) Extra Nourishment - Rs. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) towards compensation under the following heads: Part - I (i) Transport to Hospital - Rs. 15,000.00 (ii) Extra Nourishment - Rs. 15,000.00 (iii) Expenses incurred towards treatment - Rs.5,00,000.00 ---------------- Total of Part I - Rs.5,30,000.00 ---------------- Part-II (i) Compensation for pain and sufferings - Rs. 1,40,000.00 (ii) Compensation for continuing of permanent disability if any -Rs. 9,15,000.00 (iii) Compensation for the loss of earning power - Rs. 9,15,000.00 ----------------- Total of Part II - Rs.19,70,000.00 ----------------- Total of Part I and II - Rs.25,00,000.00 ----------------- (iv) The first respondent namely the owner cum driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-L-9558 which caused the accident, remained exparte and the insurer namely the second respondent/appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.1511 of 2011 filed the counter affidavit denying the contents of the claim petition and took a specific stand that on investigation, they came to know that there is no valid driving licence for the driver of the lorry to drive the vehicle transporting hazardous materials and hence, they are not liable to compensate the claimant. (v) The second respondent also denied the manner of the accident as well as the claim made by the claimant under various heads and would further contend that in spite of the disablement, he can still carry on his avocation and hence, prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. (vi) During the course of trial, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined Dr.Rajendran as P.W.2 who issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P.21 and P.W.3 namely Chinnasamy to speak about his income and also marked Exs.P.1 to P.21 on his side. On behalf of the second respondent/insurer, on of their officials was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 - xerox copy of the policy and Ex.R.2 - xerox copy of the driving licence, were marked and Ex.X.1 - ICICI Bank Account Statement was also marked. (vii) The Tribunal on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, found that the accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent - owner cum driver of the vehicle. (vii) The Tribunal on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, found that the accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent - owner cum driver of the vehicle. Insofar as the stand taken by the second respondent/insurer that the driver of the said vehicle was not having the driving licence/batch to drive the vehicles transporting the hazardous materials, the Tribunal found that from the evidence, it is not clear as to whether the said vehicle was loaded with petroleum products or other hazardous materials and in the absence of the same, the contention put forth by them, cannot be accepted and held that the second respondent as the insurer of the first respondent's vehicle, is liable to pay the compensation. (viii) As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal found that as per Ex.P.8 - Discharge summary issued by Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, the claimant as an inpatient, took treatment from 24.11.2009 to 31.12.2009 and underwent several surgeries and his left leg above knee was amputated and he also sustained fracture of pubic bone and left femur. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 - Doctor, who examined the claimant and issued Ex.P.21 - Disability Certificate and found that P.W.2 assessed the disability of the claimant as 80% and on account of the same, he became incapacitated and disabled from carrying on his avocation. (ix) The Tribunal has also taken into consideration that the claimant was aged about 42 years on the date of the accident and further taken into consideration the testimony of P.W.3 through whom Ex.X.1 came to be marked and found that in the absence of the documents as to the exact income earned by him, the claimant would have earned a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) p.m. and he being a contractor, can engage a third person to do the work and consequently, arrived at a sum of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) p.m., towards loss of income. The Tribunal adopted multiplier of 14 and arrived at a compensation of Rs.7,56,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Six Thousand only) and after deducting 1/3rd amount, fixed the compensation at Rs.5,04,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Four Thousand only). The Tribunal adopted multiplier of 14 and arrived at a compensation of Rs.7,56,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Six Thousand only) and after deducting 1/3rd amount, fixed the compensation at Rs.5,04,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Four Thousand only). (x) The Tribunal further found that as per Exs.P.9 to P.12 – hospital receipts and medical bills, the claimant had spent Rs.8,06,855.25 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Five and Paise Twenty Five only) and awarded a sum of Rs.8,07,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Seven Thousand only) towards medical expenses and towards pain and sufferings, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) was awarded towards transport expenses and nutrition and for the expenses incurred for engaging the attendants, awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only). Ultimately, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,96,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) towards compensation with interest at 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. 5. Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.1511 of 2011/second respondent would submit that as per the rough sketch marked as Ex.P.3, the claimant alone was responsible for the accident and it is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant /second respondent that though the driver of the vehicle possessed the driving licence to drive the vehicles transporting hazardous materials, it was valid upto 01.01.2009 and at the time of the accident, it expired and was renewed only on 09.12.2009 and as such, the appellant/second respondent cannot be fastened with any liability. 6. Insofar as the quantum of compensation, the learned Counsel for the appellant/second respondent would submit that a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) for fixing artificial limb, is very much on the higher side and Ex.P.16 cannot be relied upon to arrive at the said amount for the reason that it was only an estimate and the person who issued the said document, was not examined. 7. 7. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/second respondent that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are fanciful and exorbitant and alternately, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant/second respondent that in the event of this Court upholding the impugned award and decree passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/second respondent may be permitted to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the first respondent/owner of the vehicle. 8. Per contra, Mr.T.Selvakumaran, learned Counsel for the first respondent/claimant would contend that the Tribunal on a proper consideration of oral and documentary evidence, rightly arrived at a finding that the vehicle owned by the first respondent therein was driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the accident took place, wherein the claimant suffered grievous injuries which ultimately resulted in amputation of his left leg above knee. 9. The learned Counsel for the first respondent/claimant would further submit that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side for the reason that it should have fixed the income at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) p.m., as against Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) p.m., and the compensation should have also been awarded under two heads namely 'Permanent Disability' and 'Loss of Income'. 10. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the first respondent that the Tribunal committed a grave error in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses overlooking the fact that it is a case of injury. 11. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the first respondent/claimant that more amounts should have been awarded under the heads of transportation and extra nourishment and interest should have been awarded at 9% instead of 7.5% and hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation at Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) more than the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. 12. This Court paid it's best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and also the original records. 13. The following questions arise for determination in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals: "(i) Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry owned by the first respondent? 13. The following questions arise for determination in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals: "(i) Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry owned by the first respondent? (ii) Whether the driver of the vehicle possessed valid driving licence to drive the vehicles transporting hazardous materials? (iii) Whether the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, is just and proper? (iv) Whether the first respondent/claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?" Question No.(i) 14. The claimant who was examined as P.W.1, deposed that he was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-47-T-4698 from east to west on the left hand side of the road and when he was approaching Thirukampuliyur Roundana, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-L-9558 driven by the first respondent without going around the Roundana, came on the wrong side in the opposite direction and dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. A complaint in this regard was lodged by one Ramalingam based on which Ex.P.1 - F.I.R was registered, wherein it has been stated that the lorry driven by the first respondent therein without going around the Roundana came in a wrong side and dashed against the two wheeler. The jurisdictional police after investigation, filed the final report under Ex.P.6 and as per Ex.P.7, the first respondent/owner cum driver of the lorry admitted his guilt and paid the fine. 15. The Tribunal arrived at a factual finding that the vehicle was driven by the first respondent therein, in a rash and negligent manner and that too, on a wrong side, which resulted in the accident. This Court finds no infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. Question No.(ii) 16. A perusal of Ex.R.2 - xerox copy of the driving licence would read that the driver/first respondent was possessing licence to drive the vehicles transporting hazardous materials and it was valid upto 01.01.2009 and the accident took place on 23.11.2009 and subsequently, the driving licence was renewed on 09.12.2009. 17. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A.Jafer Sadiq reported in 2012(1) TN MAC 394 (DB), has considered the issue of non-possession of valid and effective driving licence and after taking into consideration the catena of decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court, held as follows: "47. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A.Jafer Sadiq reported in 2012(1) TN MAC 394 (DB), has considered the issue of non-possession of valid and effective driving licence and after taking into consideration the catena of decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court, held as follows: "47. The snapshot of the entire discussion is the inevitable conclusion we come to, namely, as per Section 149(4) read with Section 149(2)(b) of MV Act, 1988, the Insurer cannot deny liability on the ground that the driving licence had expired. The remedy for the Insurer may only be to pay and recover from the insured, for the defence so raised is not one contemplated under Section 149(2)(b) for which defence alone, the Insurers appear permitted to avoid liability in toto. Our decision in this regard falls in line with the spate of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court holding that in such cases the Insurers may have to pay and recover and not be entitled to avoid liability. But in the light of our specific discussion relating to the distinction and difference between the legal position as obtaining under MV Act, 1939 and MV Act, 1988, we are fortified in our view that the Tribunal has correctly ruled that Insurer cannot escape liability though had proved that the driver of the insured possessed only an expired driving licence. But we would add that he is liable to pay compensation to the third party victim with liberty to recover such sum from the insured or owner of the vehicle." 18. The facts narrated above would indicate that though the first respondent possessed valid driving licence upto 01.01.2009 to drive the vehicle transporting hazardous materials, the said licence expired on 01.01.2009 and on the date of accident, i.e. 23.11.2009, his driving licence had expired which was subsequently renewed on 09.12.2009. Though the Tribunal found that in the absence of the pleadings and evidence to prove that the vehicle was loaded with petroleum products/hazardous materials at the time of the accident and the driving licence of the first respondent marked as Ex.R.2 would also disclose that he was having the driving licence to drive such a type of vehicle, but it has expired at the relevant point of time. The necessary implication would be that the vehicle owned and driven by the first respondent is a tanker lorry and hence, he obtained necessary endorsement to drive such a type of vehicle. Though no evidence was let in as to the transportation of hazardous material in the said lorry, the fact remains that the vehicle was used as a tanker lorry and at the time of the accident, the relevant endorsement expired which was renewed subsequent to the accident. Therefore, at the relevant point of time, the first respondent was not disqualified from having such an endorsement which was also fortified on account of subsequent renewal on 09.12.2009. 19. In the light of the ratio laid down in the above cited decision coupled with the facts, this Court is of the view that the appellant/second respondent - insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle namely the first respondent therein. Question No.(iii) 20. Ex.P.8 is the Discharge Summary issued by Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore and it was shown that the claimant was admitted as an inpatient from 24.11.2009 to 31.12.2009 in a private hospital at Coimbatore wherein he had undergone several surgeries and his left leg above knee was also amputated. P.W.2 - Doctor, had examined the claimant and issued the disability certificate under Ex.P.21 wherein he assessed the disability at 80%. 21. This Court has perused the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and taking into consideration the avocation of the claimant, is of the view that it would definitely impede in his smooth functioning. However, taking into consideration the fact that he was employed as a contractor to paste stickers on the bus bodies, de hors permanent disability, it is possible for him to engage the workers to do the said work, this Court is of the view that the extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be functional disability of the body and it would not prevent him from carrying on his avocation, but at the same breathe, the claimant has to engage workers to do the work. 22. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral testimony of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.X.1 and arrived at a finding that the claimant would have earned at least Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) p.m. 23. 22. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral testimony of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.X.1 and arrived at a finding that the claimant would have earned at least Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) p.m. 23. Though the learned Counsel for the first respondent/claimant would submit that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) p.m., in the absence of sufficient evidence, it is difficult to accept the same. The Tribunal found that the claimant would have earned a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) and taking into consideration the fact that on account of permanent disability, he has to engage the workers to carry on the work on his behalf, rightly arrived at a sum of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) p.m. and there is no infirmity in the said finding. 24. The Tribunal accepted the testimonies of P.W.2 and Ex.P.21 and found that the claimant suffered 80% permanent disability and for calculating the quantum of compensation on account of personal/permanent disability, it adopted the multiplier of 14. 25. A feeble attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the appellant/second respondent that the Tribunal committed an error in adopting the multiplier for calculating the compensation in a case of injury. In the considered opinion of this Curt, the said submission is liable to be rejected for the reason that the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruchengode v. Veluchamy reported in 2005(1) TN MAC 87 (DB), held that in injury cases, multiplier method could be adopted. The said decision was subsequently referred to and followed in an yet another decision in The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Pudukottai v. A.P.Maha Bharathi reported in 2011(1) TN MAC 208 (DB). 26. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in adopting the multiplier method in a case of injury. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the claimant as 42 years as per Ex.P.19 - driving licence, has arrived at a sum of Rs.7,56,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Six Thousand only) [Rs.4,500/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.7,56,000/-] and out of the said sum, deducted 1/3rd amount for lump sum payment. 27. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the claimant as 42 years as per Ex.P.19 - driving licence, has arrived at a sum of Rs.7,56,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Six Thousand only) [Rs.4,500/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.7,56,000/-] and out of the said sum, deducted 1/3rd amount for lump sum payment. 27. The learned Counsel for the first respondent/claimant would submit that the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3rd amount for personal expenses and in support of his submission, placed reliance upon the decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2011 ACJ 1 . The facts of the said case would disclose that the appellant/claimant therein was eking out his livelihood as cheese vendor and on account of permanent functional disability of the body at 25% and loss of future earning capacity at 20%, he was not in a position to eke out his livelihood as done prior to the accident. The Honourable Supreme Court taking into consideration the fact that the appellant/claimant therein was a road side vendor, held that there is no need to deduct 1/3rd amount or any other percentage from out of the income as personal or living expenses. 28. As already held above, the first respondent/claimant herein is eking out his livelihood as a contractor for pasting the stickers in the bus bodies and de hors disability, he can employ the workers to do the said work and taking into consideration the fact that he has to incur expenses by way of wages/salaries to do so, his income was rightly fixed at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) p.m. 29. In the light of the factual situation, the deduction of 1/3rd amount by the Tribunal is held to be proper. 30. As per Exs.P.9 to P.17, the Tribunal found that the claimant incurred the medical expenses of Rs.8,06,855.25 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Five and Paise Twenty Five only) and rounding off the said amount, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,07,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Seven Thousand only) towards medical expenses. 31. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company has raised a strong objection regarding the amount of Rs.3,96,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) awarded towards purchase of artificial limb. 31. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company has raised a strong objection regarding the amount of Rs.3,96,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) awarded towards purchase of artificial limb. He would also contend that Ex.P16, quotation issued by M/s.Otto Bock Health Care India Private Limited, Coimbatore, ought not to have been relied upon to award a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) for purchase of artificial limb and that the artificial limb is available at less cost. 32. We have perused Ex.P16, quotation issued by M/s.Otto Bock Health Care India Private Limited, Coimbatore, for purchase of artificial limb. In the accident, claimant sustained fracture in left femur and the left leg of the claimant was amputated above the knee. We do not find any reason to disbelieve Ex.P16, quotation issued by M/s.Otto Bock Health Care India Private Limited, Coimbatore, and the amount of Rs.3,96,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal for purchase of artificial limb is maintained. That apart as per Exs.P9 to 15 and P17, the claimant incurred the medical expenses of Rs.4,10,855.25 (Rupees Four Lakhs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Five and Paise Twenty Five only). Adding Rs.3,96,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) for artificial limb into Rs.4,10,855.25 (Rupees Four Lakhs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Five and Paise Twenty Five only) towards medical expenses and rounding of the said amount, Tribunal awarded Rs.8,07,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Seven Thousand only) towards medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and also the period of treatment undergone, Rs.8,07,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Seven Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is maintained. 33. The Tribunal taking into consideration the fact that the claimant suffered grievous injuries and also underwent several surgeries including the amputation of the left leg above knee and further taking into consideration the fact that he took treatment as an inpatient at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, from 24.11.2009 to 31.12.2009, has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) under the head 'pain and sufferings'. 34. The claimant had undergone treatment from 24.11.2009 to 31.12.2009 as inpatient in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, where he had undergone several surgeries. 34. The claimant had undergone treatment from 24.11.2009 to 31.12.2009 as inpatient in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, where he had undergone several surgeries. By perusal of Ex.P.2-wound certificate, it is seen that the claimant had sustained fracture in pelvic bone, fracture in left femur and dislocation of left knee and a thorough amputation had to be performed. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment undergone by the claimant, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal towards 'pain and suffering' is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). 35. For transportation and nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and also taking into consideration the fact that his close relatives have to attend the claimant during the period of his treatment as an inpatient, a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) awarded under the said head cannot be said to be on the higher side. Question No.(iv) 36. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the first respondent/appellant in C.M.A(MD)No.28 of 2012 that the monthly income of the claimant should have been fixed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) should have been awarded under the head 'loss of amenities/loss of enjoyment of life/loss of marital expenses'. 37. This Court, in the earlier paragraphs, has recorded the reasons that the monthly income fixed at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) p.m., by the Tribunal, is correct and proper and the testimony of P.W.3 would also disclose that the claimant was not earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) p.m., as claimed. 38. Though the claimant suffered 80% permanent disability on account of amputation of the left leg above knee, the said extent of permanent disability would affect his functional disability in respect of his avocation. That apart it would greatly affect the claimant's day today activities. His daily routine like attending nature's call, eating, sitting and moving about in the house, the Claimant have to depend upon others. The amputation of left leg above the knee certainly affects the amenities and the daily routine of the claimant. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) could be awarded under the head 'loss of amenities'. The amputation of left leg above the knee certainly affects the amenities and the daily routine of the claimant. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) could be awarded under the head 'loss of amenities'. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards 'transportation and extra- nourishment' and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards 'attendant's charges', are just and reasonable and this Court finds no infirmity with regard to the said quantum and the same are maintained. Thus, the compensation of Rs.13,96,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,96,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only). 39. In the result, (i) C.M.A.(MD) No.28 of 2011 : The compensation of Rs.13,96,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.70of2010dated 06.7.2011 is enhanced to Rs.15,96,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) and C.M.A.(MD) No.28 of 2011 preferred by the claimant is partly allowed. The appellant/second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.15,96,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to the date of deposit. (ii) C.M.A.(MD) No.1511 of 2011: Award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2010 dated 06.07.2011 is modified with a direction to the appellant/second respondent/Insurance Company to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.15,96,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only) payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to the date of deposit to the claimant and recover the same from the first respondent/insured and there shall be a decree to that effect in favour of the appellant/second respondent/Insurance Company and C.M.A.(MD) No.1511 of 2011 is partly allowed insofar as the direction as to pay and recover from the insured. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs. After the pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Counsel for the appellant in C.M.A(MD)No.28 of 2012/claimant in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2010, sought for permission to withdraw the compensation amount. It is submitted that the Insurance Company has already deposited the compensation amount of Rs.13,96,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only). The claimant is permitted to immediately withdraw the entire compensation amount. It is submitted that the Insurance Company has already deposited the compensation amount of Rs.13,96,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Ninety Six Thousand only). The claimant is permitted to immediately withdraw the entire compensation amount. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) along with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. On such deposit also, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount.