JUDGMENT Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—The appellant, a hapless victim of road accident, has craved for justice in the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’). Cause of grievance of the appellant, as emerges out from the memo of appeal, is inadequacy of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (for short, 'learned Tribunal') by its impugned award dated 21.2.2012. 2. Apposite facts, arranged in the chronological order, are detailed herein under: 3. On the fateful day of 11th of December 2009 at about 2:45 PM, while undertaking journey from Gulabganj to Revdar on a motorbike, which was driven at a moderate speed by its driver Popatlal, the unfortunate calamity occurred near village Dabani. Although driver of the motorcycle with all precautions plied the vehicle towards left side of the road strictly adhering to traffic rules, but despite his all safety measures, it collided with a bus coming from Revdar and as a consequence of this head on collision of vehicles, the appellant suffered grave and serious injuries. The cause of accident was overtact of the first respondent driver of Truck No. HR-46-B-3824 and the accident occurred at the National Highway near curve of village Dabani Bridge. At the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle dashed with the motorbike at its front wheel with optimum speed while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Occurrence of accident instantaneously perplexed the appellant and the driver of motorbike, and due to trauma of fatal injuries, he fainted on the spot. The appellant was immediately taken to Primary Health Centre, Anadara and provided primary medical aid. But looking to the gravity and magnitude of the injuries, viz. compound fractures of Tibia & Fibula of left leg, smashing both the bones and bone of the foot, he was referred to an orthopedic hospital and thereupon he was shifted to Sagar Orthopedic Hospital, Palanpur on the same day. At the Palanpur hospital, after radiological investigation, a major operation of the appellant was performed by implanting rod in his body with requisite wiring and screwing. The appellant remained under convalescence as indoor patient of the said hospital up to 20th of January 2010 and in the interregnum period twice blood was transfused. At the Palanpur hospital, after radiological investigation, a major operation of the appellant was performed by implanting rod in his body with requisite wiring and screwing. The appellant remained under convalescence as indoor patient of the said hospital up to 20th of January 2010 and in the interregnum period twice blood was transfused. Soon after the operation and discharge from hospital, the appellant remained bed-ridden for almost three months and thereafter from 1st April 2010 to 30th April 2010, he undertook exercise as advised by the physiotherapist. Appellant has also asserted in the claim petition that he is under constant vigil of the expert doctors and visiting hospital periodically for his checkup and treatment is still going on. As per version of the appellant, he is still required to undergo surgery. While adverting to the quantum of compensation, the appellant has stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident, he was employed as a Salesman at Mumbai earning Rs.8,000/- per month and due to this accident his entire efficiency has impaired and now he is unable to perform his duties as a Salesman. The injuries suffered by the appellant have rendered him permanent disable and the mental agony suffered by him during his convalescence and sufferance of pain has made his life miserable. Till date, as per the appellant, he is unable to walk without support. With all these averments, the appellant has quantified the compensation to the tune of Rs.9,20,000/- under various heads. 4. After issuance of notices by the learned Tribunal, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2 and therefore the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them. The respondent insurer while responding to the notice appeared before the learned Tribunal and contested the claim. In the return, the third respondent very candidly admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it but while joining issue with the appellant, it has pleaded that cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of motorbike. The third respondent Insurance Company categorically averred in the reply that truck was driven by its driver cautiously and therefore no negligence can be attributed to its driver for the occurrence of the accident. Alleging collusion between the owner of the truck and the Police, the insurance company has put forth its defence that the truck driver has been unnecessarily held responsible for the accident. Alleging collusion between the owner of the truck and the Police, the insurance company has put forth its defence that the truck driver has been unnecessarily held responsible for the accident. A specific plea regarding validity of licence of truck driver was also incorporated in the return besides valid permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle for plying the same. Taking a dig at the alleged violation of the terms of the insurance policy, the insurance company has pleaded that liability of compensation cannot be fastened on it. 5. Relying on the pleadings of the rival parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues for determination. For proving his case, the appellant himself appeared in the witness box and testified on oath and produced 156 documents for authenticating the quantum of compensation. Against the ocular and documentary evidence of the appellant, no evidence was tendered on behalf of the respondents. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence and other materials on record, decided Issue No.1 in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. The Issue No.3, which was settled on the basis of pleadings of the insurer, was not substantiated by the insurance company and consequently the same was decided by the learned Tribunal against the insurer. While deciding Issue No.2 & 4 simultaneously, the learned Tribunal quantified the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,82,140/- only. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the findings of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.2 & 4 has urged that amount of compensation awarded to the appellant is grossly inadequate and not commensurating with the injuries suffered by him and as such the quantum of compensation is required to be enhanced adequately. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vivek Shah, has strenuously argued that the evidence tendered by the appellant was unimpeachable and there was a material evidence showing the monthly income of the victim, then how and in what manner the learned Tribunal has reduced the monthly income to the tune of Rs.3,000/- while assessing the amount of compensation, is not at all clear from the findings of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that looking to the grave and serious injuries suffered by the appellant and the disability certificate showing disability of 53.5%, the learned Tribunal ought to have quantified the compensation appropriately for doing substantial justice. Mr. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that looking to the grave and serious injuries suffered by the appellant and the disability certificate showing disability of 53.5%, the learned Tribunal ought to have quantified the compensation appropriately for doing substantial justice. Mr. Vivek Shah would urge that taking into account the job, which the appellant was undertaking before the accident, which was a field job as salesman; it was expected from the learned Tribunal to have awarded him adequate compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that due to this accident and percentage of disability suffered by the appellant, he is unable to earn his livelihood and is sitting idle, which was a very vital issue, but the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation has not properly addressed the same, and therefore, the award impugned is liable to be modified by taking a benevolent view to enhance the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge that although the learned Tribunal has relied on Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ( (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC)), but has miserably failed to examine properly the issue regarding future loss of earnings of the appellant. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company, Mr. R.K. Singhal, has stoutly defended the impugned award and submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and the same is not liable to be interfered with. Learned counsel for the respondent insurer would urge that a salary certificate, which was issued by a private employer, has been rightly construed by the learned Tribunal to appellant's disadvantage in the given circumstances inasmuch as the author of the certificate was not produced to prove its recitals. Mr. Singhal has argued that the learned Tribunal in the given circumstances has rightly applied the ratio decidendi in Sarla Verma's case by presuming the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- and after applying the multiplier of 17, has rightly quantified the compensation. Mr. Singhal has argued that the learned Tribunal in the given circumstances has rightly applied the ratio decidendi in Sarla Verma's case by presuming the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- and after applying the multiplier of 17, has rightly quantified the compensation. Joining the issue with the appellant on the percentage of disability at which the learned Tribunal has assessed the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the respondent would urge that disability of lower abdominal portion of an individual by 25% has been rightly construed by the learned Tribunal while assessing loss of income to the incumbent and the said finding therefore cannot be faulted so as to require interference by this Court. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2, while supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurer, has urged that the compensation awarded is just and therefore, the prayer of the appellant for its enhancement is not tenable. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, perused the impugned award, and scanned the entire record of the learned Tribunal. 10. Judicial Scrutiny in the instant appeal lies in a very narrow compass and the same hovers around the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. On thorough examination of the record of the claim case, it is crystal clear that the appellant has made all sincere endeavour to substantiate his claim by tendering his ocular as well as documentary evidence. In this background, if the defence put forth by the respondents is examined then it ipso facto reveals that the respondents including the insurance company has not been able to put any defence much less substantial defence to counter the claim of the appellant. For authenticating his claim, the appellant has placed on record umpteen materials in the form of oral and documentary evidence which remained un-rebutted and un-impeached during trial at the behest of respondents. There is obviously no material placed on record to discredit the salary certificate produced by the appellant and the learned Tribunal while disbelieving the said certificate has not recorded cogent and convincing reasons. True it is, that the author of the certificate was not produced or any corroborating witness has not appeared but in want of any challenge to the said certificate by the respondents, there was obviously no reason for the learned Tribunal to completely discard the same. True it is, that the author of the certificate was not produced or any corroborating witness has not appeared but in want of any challenge to the said certificate by the respondents, there was obviously no reason for the learned Tribunal to completely discard the same. The authenticity of the salary certificate when tested on the touchstone of evidence of the appellant, more precisely during his cross-examination, then in considered opinion of this Court nothing turned out to discredit the same. The appellant during his cross-examination also has been able to substantiate the said certificate. One more fact which deserves cognizance for judicial scrutiny is that the certificate as such was not challenged at the behest of respondents and during cross examination of the appellant also, the respondents have miserably failed to impeach the same. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned in the impugned award by the learned Tribunal to wholly brush aside the salary certificate for the purpose of assessment of quantum of compensation, is too technical a view which cannot be endorsed. It is trite that evidence in claim petitions are not liable to be scrutinized at par with a criminal proceeding or even civil proceeding and requirement of standard of proof in such proceeding is akin to that of preponderance of probabilities. Thus, in the estimation of this Court, the findings of the learned Tribunal for discrediting the salary certificate are wholly perverse and cannot be sustained. If the impugned award is examined with a bird's eye view, then it will ipso facto reveal that although the learned Tribunal has placed heavy reliance on the verdict of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case but surprisingly it has not made any endeavor to, quantify the adequate compensation vis-à-vis future loss of earnings of the appellant. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar ( (2011) 1 SCC 343 ), has laid down the criteria for ascertaining the effect of permanent disability on the actual earning capacity of an individual. The relevant portions of the verdict of the Apex Court are extracted below: 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The relevant portions of the verdict of the Apex Court are extracted below: 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Yadava Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) 12. xxx xxx xxx 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Yadava Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) 12. xxx xxx xxx 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of “loss of future earnings”, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of “loss of future earnings”, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. 15. xxx xxx xxx 16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular, the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to “hold an enquiry into the claim” for determining the “just compensation”. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the “just compensation”. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a medical dictionary and a handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example, Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopaedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorised texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the First Schedule to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of B. Kothandapani vs. Tamilnadu State Road Transport Corporation Limited ( (2011) 6 SCC 420 = 2011(2) RLW 1826 (SC)), while considering permanent disability suffered by a victim due to accident vis-à-vis his earning capacity, has also appreciated the factum of his sufferings including his dependence on others for normal avocation. The Court has made following observations in Para 15 & 16 of the verdict: 15. The Court has made following observations in Para 15 & 16 of the verdict: 15. It is true that the compensation for loss of earning power/capacity has to be determined based on various aspects including permanent injury/disability. At the same time, it cannot be construed that compensation cannot be granted for permanent disability of any nature. For example, take the case of a non-earning member of a family who has been injured in an accident and sustained permanent disability due to amputation of leg or hand, it cannot be construed that no amount needs to be granted for permanent disability. It cannot be disputed that apart from the fact that the permanent disability affects the earning capacity of the person concerned, undoubtedly, one has to forego other personal comforts and even for normal avocation they have to depend on others. 16. In the case on hand, two doctors had explained the nature of injuries, treatment received and the disability suffered due to partial loss of eyesight and amputation of middle finger of the right hand and we have already adverted to the avocation, namely, at the time of accident, he was working as foreman in M/s Armstrong Hydraulics Ltd. Taking note of his nature of work, partial loss in eyesight and loss of middle finger of the right hand, not only affect his earning capacity but also affect normal avocation and day-to-day work. In such circumstance, we are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in granting a sum of Rs.1,50,000 towards permanent disability. 13. The Apex Court, in case of Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (III (2013) ACC 424 (SC) = 2013(4) RLW 2853 & 3189 (SC)), while examining the issue relating to documentary evidence without there being any proof that the said document is fabricated, has held in Para 13 that the document has to be relied upon for the purpose of assessing amount of compensation, which is reproduced as under: 13. Point Nos. Point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered together as they are interrelated with each other, by assigning the following reasons: The High Court has gravely erred both on facts and in law in interfering with the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in reducing the pecuniary damages awarded towards medical expenses incurred by the appellant herein from Rs.17,51,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/- solely on the ground that there is no documentary evidence in relation to the amount spent towards medical expenses which is awarded by the Tribunal. This assumption by the learned Judge of High Court is factually not correct. As could be seen from the record, there are large number of medical bills and vouchers produced by the appellant for having spent the money towards the surgeries conducted upon her and payment made to the various Hospitals and Nursing Homes namely, V.S.S. Medical Hospital, Burla, Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneshwar, Nursing Home, Cuttack along with purchase of medicines for the aforesaid period which run to Rs.17,51,726/-. The above said factual aspects are stated in unequivocal terms in her statement of evidence, and she has also referred to the documents such as bills, receipts and vouchers obtained by her from various medical stores on the basis of the prescriptions of the doctors who have treated her. Some of the documents were marked in the evidence of PW-3 - the appellant herein and she had spoken about the expenses incurred towards her treatment and purchase of medicines. In relation to some other documents, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has objected for making them exhibits without raising tenable objections. The learned member of the Tribunal neither upheld nor rejected the objection raised by the counsel on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company at the time of marking documents through the appellant in her evidence. Nonetheless, the learned member of the Tribunal has taken those documents into consideration and has awarded compensation under pecuniary damages having regard to the clinching evidence on record that the surgeries were conducted and treatment was taken by her in various hospitals and Nursing Homes for a period of four years. The correctness of the said claim is examined by us with reference to the documents in Ann. The correctness of the said claim is examined by us with reference to the documents in Ann. P-7 produced in this case, in which date-wise particulars with regard to the name of the Institutions and Medical Stores, the expenses incurred and bill numbers, payment made for the purpose of conducting blood tests, purchase of medicines, purchase of blood from the blood bank and cost of surgeries spent by the appellant are given. The Tribunal, in the absence of rebuttal evidence and the nature of cross examination of the appellant-PW3 made by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company and the evidence adduced by the appellant herein and the claim made by her under the pecuniary damages towards the medical expenses, tests, surgeries etc. and other incidental purposes, has accepted and has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 17,51,726/- under the heading of medical expenses. The same has been arbitrarily and unreasonably, without assigning any cogent and valid reason, interfered with by the High Court and it has erroneously modified the judgment by reducing the amount from Rs. 17,51,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/-. This has been very lightly interfered with by the learned Judge of the High Court without application of mind and consideration of legal evidence on record particularly in the absence of rebuttal evidence and further, the Insurance Company was unable to show that the documents referred to supra produced by the appellant in her evidence are fabricated documents, which have been produced with deliberate intention to prefer a false claim in this regard as contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company. We have carefully examined the evidence on record and the findings of the Tribunal to examine as to whether the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment for reduction of pecuniary damages from Rs.17,51,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/- is correct. On careful perusal of the evidence and documents produced by the appellant we have to hold that the finding and reason recorded by the High Court is wholly erroneous in law as the same is contrary to the facts pleaded and proved by producing evidence on record. Therefore, the same requires to be interfered with by this Court in these appeals. Accordingly, point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in the affirmative in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the same requires to be interfered with by this Court in these appeals. Accordingly, point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in the affirmative in favour of the appellant. The finding and reason recorded by the High Court in not awarding just and reasonable compensation under the various heads of non pecuniary damages for which she is legally entitled to on the basis of proven facts, legal evidence on record and law laid down by this Court, is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law. On this aspect, separate reasons are assigned while answering point Nos. (iii) & (iv). 14. Adverting to the compensation in case of personal injury, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down following criteria in Para 25, which reads as under: 25. It is well-settled principle that in granting compensation for personal injury, the injured has to be compensated, (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, if any; (4)loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages. In personal injury cases the two main elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss. Chief Justice Cockburn in Fair's case, supra, distinguished the above two aspects thus: "In assessing the compensation the jury should take into account two things, first, the pecuniary loss the plaintiff sustains by the accident: secondly, the injury he sustains in his person, or his physical capacity of enjoying life. When they come to the consideration of the pecuniary loss they have to take into account not only his present loss, but his incapacity to earn a future improved income". 15. Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of S. Manickam vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. (2013 ACJ 1935 = 2013(4) RLW 3116 (SC)), while examining the principles of assessment of compensation in case of injury, has held that compensation is to be assessed benevolently in the facts of an individual case. In Para 12 of the verdict, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made following observations: 12. In matters of determination of compensation, particularly, under the Motor Vehicles Act, both the tribunals and the High Courts are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a "just compensation". It is true that determination of "just compensation" cannot be equated to a bonanza. In Para 12 of the verdict, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made following observations: 12. In matters of determination of compensation, particularly, under the Motor Vehicles Act, both the tribunals and the High Courts are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a "just compensation". It is true that determination of "just compensation" cannot be equated to a bonanza. On the other hand, the concept of "just compensation" suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and the courts. We hold that determination of quantum in motor accidents cases and compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 must be liberal since the law values life and limb in free country in generous scales. The adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to take note of the suffering of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. While computing compensation, the approach of the tribunal or a court has to be broad based and sometimes it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. 16. Applying the ratio decidendi of the judgments referred to supra in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court feels that for assessing the just compensation in the matter, a benevolent view is need of the hour while construing the salary certificate tendered by the appellant in the light of the nature of duties of a Salesman. Assuming that the figure of Rs.8,000/- per month may be excessive, but then in all fairness the same cannot be construed to appellant's detriment by reducing the monthly income @ Rs.3000/-. On objective analysis of the certificate, income of the appellant can be assessed @ Rs.5,000/- per month and accordingly the amount of compensation deserves enhancement. The injuries suffered by the appellant has not resulted in amputation of his leg and therefore the assessment of loss of earning capacity by the learned Tribunal to the extent of 25% cannot be faulted and the said finding of the learned Tribunal is not infirm in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The injuries suffered by the appellant has not resulted in amputation of his leg and therefore the assessment of loss of earning capacity by the learned Tribunal to the extent of 25% cannot be faulted and the said finding of the learned Tribunal is not infirm in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Looking to the age of the appellant, which was 27 at the time of accident, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is just and proper and therefore taking into account the loss of earning capacity of the appellant to the extent of 25%, the amount of compensation is re-determined as infra: 5000 x 12 x 17 x 25% = Rs.2,55,000/- Thus, under the head “Loss of future prospects of income”, the appellant is entitled for additional amount of compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- only. 17. Applying the ratio decidendi of S. Manickam’s case (supra), the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for pain and sufferings of the appellant also deserves adequate enhancement because the victim has been deprived of the opportunity to lead a full life and to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries suffered by him due to the accident. While appreciating the afflictions of the appellant in this behalf, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of a meager sum of Rs.10,000/-, which in the considered opinion of this Court is obviously not matching with the sufferings of the appellant. Therefore, the compensation under this head, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the instant case is liable to be enhanced to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and the appellant is declared entitled for additional amount of compensation under this head for sum of Rs.20,000/- only. 18. The net result of the above discussion is that this appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to the tune of Rs.4,04,000/-. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount, and therefore, they are directed to ensure the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. The costs are made easy.