JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2006 made in M.C.O.P. No. 752 of 2003 by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-II) Kancheepuram, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,40,500/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimant/respondent herein for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that had occurred on 2.10.2003. 2. On 2.10.2003 at about 1.35 a.m., when the claimant was driving his own lorry along with the cleaner loaded with iron plates from Korukkupettai Goods Shed towards Kanchipuram in the Bangalore Highways Road, near Poonamallee Kumanan Chavadi, the lorry was stopped on the extreme left side of the road as the tyre got punctured. While he was attending to the repairing work, the bus belonging to the Appellant Transport Corporation coming from Chennai towards Poonamallee at a high speed hit behind the claimant, who was attending the puncturing work on the left side of the road, due to which he suffered multiple injuries and he was immediately admitted in the Porur Ramachandra Hospital and his right leg was amputated above knee. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs, restricted to Rs. 15 lakhs. 3. The Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and after fastening negligence on the part of the bus driver, awarded compensation to the claimant as stated above. 4. Mr. S.S. Swaminathan, the learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation challenged the award and contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus solely on the ground that the driver of the bus was not examined before the Tribunal. The learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that there was no indication for parking of the lorry on the road and that the claimant also contributed to the negligence. 5. Mr. The learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that there was no indication for parking of the lorry on the road and that the claimant also contributed to the negligence. 5. Mr. V. Jagannathan, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the appellant having failed to produce his own driver in the witness box, this Court should not entertain the plea of contributory negligence of the victim. 6. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record. 7. In the instant case, the complaint was lodged by the cleaner of the lorry and in the First Information Report, it is clearly averred that the lorry was parked on the left side of the road and the claimant was attending to the repair works. It is further stated that the bus was driven by its driver at a high speed and dashed on the rear side of the lorry, which resulted in one of the iron plates loaded in the lorry falling down on the claimant, causing fracture of the thigh bone and punctured wounds on the right thigh of the claimant. Besides the averments stated in the First Information Report, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and has narrated about the manner of the accident. He has stated that the lorry was parked on the left mud portion of the road and he had also placed stones around the lorry to indicate to the drivers of the other vehicles to keep away from the stationary vehicle. He has further stated that the bus, in the process of overtaking an on going lorry, came to the wrong side of the road and in that process, dashed against the claimant causing injuries to him. In his evidence, he has stated that he had put on the parking lamps and he denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred since the lorry capsized on the road. 8. There is no contra evidence on the side of the appellant Transport Corporation. The appellant has not let in any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence put forth by the claimant. 8. There is no contra evidence on the side of the appellant Transport Corporation. The appellant has not let in any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence put forth by the claimant. The appellant in this case having failed to bring the driver or the conductor of the bus who were its employees and under its control to the witness box to give evidence and face cross examination of the claimant, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellant and in the said view of the matter, the plea of contributory negligence of the victim cannot be entertained. 9. Admittedly, a criminal case has been registered against the driver of the bus. The evidence placed on record clearly proved that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and there is no material to suggest that there was some negligence on the part of the claimant in parking the vehicle without any indication of such parking of the vehicle. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the findings of the Tribunal fastening negligence on the part of the bus driver warranting interference and the same is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed. 10. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head of loss of earning power without any basis and the award amounts under other heads are also excessive. 11. On the other hand, Mr. V. Jagannathan, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken 100 per cent permanent disability of the claimant, in view of the amputation of the right leg above knee, who is a driver by profession and prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 12. From the evidence placed on record, it is an admitted fact that the right leg of the claimant has been amputated above knee from the thigh. He was working as a driver and his driving licence is marked as Exhibit P-7, a licence issued for driving transport vehicle and it was valid upto 8.9.2005. After the accident, he could not drive the vehicle, as his right leg was amputated and therefore, there was no renewal of licence. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant Transport Corporation. 13. After the accident, he could not drive the vehicle, as his right leg was amputated and therefore, there was no renewal of licence. This fact has not been disputed by the appellant Transport Corporation. 13. The claimant was earning a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- as owner cum driver of the lorry. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Limited (2008) ACJ 2039 (SC) has held as under with regard to permanent disability on account of amputation of leg of a driver: “3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one argument during the course of the hearing. He has submitted that the claimant appellant being a tanker drier, the loss of his right leg ipso facto meant a total disablement as understood in terms of Section 2(1)(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and as such the appellant was entitled to have his compensation computed on that basis. In support of this plea learned counsel has placed reliance on Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivasa Sabata (1976) ACJ 141 (SC). The cited case pertained to a carpenter who had suffered an amputation of his left arm from elbow and this Court held that this amounted to a total disability as the injury was of such a nature that the claimant had been disabled from all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. It was observed as under: “(5) The expression ‘total disablement’ has been defined in Section 2(1)(1) of the Act as follows: ‘(1) ‘total disablement’ means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement.’ It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the Respondent and the question for consideration is that whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows: ‘The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession... By loss of the left hand above elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows: ‘The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession... By loss of the left hand above elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only. This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to item 3 of Part II of Schedule I, because it was not the appellant’s case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8” from tip of acromion to less than 4½” below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot, therefore, be allowed to be set up on facts which have not been admitted or established”. (4) Applying the ratio of the cited judgement to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein has also suffered a 100 per cent disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg had been amputated from knee. Additionally, a perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that the appellant would now be disqualified from even getting a driving licence. 14. As per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of amputation of leg of the driver, there is a 100 per cent permanent disability. Though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. but there is no credible evidence to prove his income. In the absence of evidence to show the income, the monthly income could be fixed as Rs. 3,000/- p.m. Considering the age of the claimant who was 31 years old at the time of the accident, 16 is the proper multiplier, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC). In computing the loss of earning power, taking the loss of income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, by applying the multiplier of 16, it would come to Rs. 5,76,000/-. 15. In computing the loss of earning power, taking the loss of income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, by applying the multiplier of 16, it would come to Rs. 5,76,000/-. 15. Considering the facts of the case and the injuries sustained by the claimant, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 25,000/- for attendants charges and Rs. 25,000/- for the loss of marital bliss, Rs. 5,000/- for transportation expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for extra nourishment are awarded. 16. P.W.2 Doctor who assessed the disability of the claimant has stated that the claimant would incur Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- for fixing artificial limb. Considering the same, Rs. 30,000/- is awarded for future medical expenses. 17. It has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court that even in the absence of any appeal from claimant under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, this Court has got powers and jurisdiction to enhance the award amount. If this Court comes to the conclusion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is too low, this Court can enhance the award amount. The Honourable Supreme Court in its decisions in Nagappa v. Gurudial Singh and Others AIR 2003 SC 674 , Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. M. Ramadevi (2008) ACJ 930 (SC) and Sarla Verma v. DTC (supra), has held that compensation can be enhanced in order to award just and reasonable amount of compensation to the claimant even in the absence of appeal or cross objection by the claimant. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of to the extent indicated above. The total compensation payable to the claimant would be Rs. 7,16,000/- with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization for the enhanced amount as detailed below: S. No. Category Award Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of Earning Power 5,76,000 2 Pain and Suffering 50,000 3 Attendants Charges 25,000 4 Loss of Marital Bliss 25,000 5 Transportation Expenses 5,000 6 Extra Nourishment 5,000 7 Future Medical Expenses 30,000 Total Compensation 7,16,000 Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of and the impugned award is enhanced to the extent mentioned above. The Appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, after giving credit to the amount already deposited by them if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant is directed to pay the requisite Court fee for the enhanced amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant is entitled to with draw the entire amount with interest, after payment of requisite Court fee. No costs. Appeal disposed of.