Judgment : 1] This first appeal is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties. 2] In the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation under various heads as follows: 3] The challenge in appeal is restricted by the appellant to Rs.9,00,000/- The heads of compensation under challenge are:- Loss of future income Rs. 2,00,000.00 Future medical treatment Rs. 7,20,000.00 4] Ground of challenge in relation to award of compensation for enabling the claimant to meet the recurring / future medical treatment, which reads as follows: “(d) The Ld. Judge has wrongly awarded Rs.7,20,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 under “Future Medical Treatment.” There is no sufficient evidence to that effect. The treating doctor has stated that the patient was spending about Rs.15,000/- per year on the treatment, in his exam-in-chief. The Ld. Judge ought to have confined to that figure only.” (copied from page no.3 of memo of appeal) 5] The ground of challenge in relation to award of loss of future income, reads as follows: “(f) The Ld. Judge wrongly awarded Rs.2 lakhs towards loss of future income, when there was none. The Claimant has himself admitted in the cross examination that he was employed in Xerox copying shop and earning about Rs.4500/- p.m., which was his income, even prior to the accident.” (copied from page no.3 of memo of appeal) 6] In the type written copy of judgment filed in this court by appellant, the evidence of claimant's witness Dr. Samir Pilankar's is quoted ad verbatim. While quoting the said text the annual expenditure recurrable and to be spent by the claimant is shown to be “Rs.15,000/-”. Portion of the said text as seen at page 24 of the paper book of this appeal is quoted below: “Patient is spending about Rs.15,000/- per year on the treatment colly.” 7] It is brought to the notice of the court by the respondents that the figure “Rs.15,000/-” is a typographical error. It is shown from the certified copy of judgment that the said figure is “Rs.50,000/-”. 8] Learned Advocate for the appellant has conceded to the position that the typographical error has crept in as brought to the notice by learned Advocate for the respondent. It is shown from the certified copy of judgment that the said figure is “Rs.50,000/-”. 8] Learned Advocate for the appellant has conceded to the position that the typographical error has crept in as brought to the notice by learned Advocate for the respondent. 9] It is thus obvious that while drafting the appeal memo, the learned Advocate for appellant has relied on figure of annual expenditure for recurring medical treatment and equipment to be Rs.15,000/- wrongly. 10] If the multiplier of 15 is considered and recurring expenditure of Rs.50,000/- is considered the estimate of expenses would be Rs.7,50,000/-. 11] This court has to consider reducing value of money and increasing prices of medicines and equipments. The multiplier of 15 which is usually considered for computation of compensation for the factor of years of purchase, however it may not really be relevant in totality while considering the factor of expectancy of life as regards recurring medical expenses 12] A judicial notice will have to be taken in relation to the fact that due to the advent of medical science, longitudity of the human life has increased. During old age capacity of earning has to fall down, however the cost of living and medical expenses has to continue and that too on higher side. This court, therefore, would be willing to accept the duration for which medical expenses will recur could be even 20 years. 13] The claimant would also need an attendant in advanced age. This aspect is not attended by any one. 14] Thus the foundation of criticism on the award of Rs.7,00,000/- towards future medical treatment is totally baseless and hence erroneous. 15] In this background the award for Rs.7,00,000/- towards recurring medical expenses cannot be viewed to be on higher side. On the other hand it is seen to be on lower side, at the most it could be said to be a fair estimate. 16] In so far as loss of future income is concerned, it is held by the Tribunal to be Rs.2,00,000/-. The fact that not only that respondent no. 1's right leg is shortened by two inches but he has to continue to suffer the liability of deformed and weakened foot for whole life. He cannot even have Jaipur foot which can be used when a limb is imputed. The fact that not only that respondent no. 1's right leg is shortened by two inches but he has to continue to suffer the liability of deformed and weakened foot for whole life. He cannot even have Jaipur foot which can be used when a limb is imputed. 17] It has to be kept in mind that the impaired and deformed lower limb could not be fully repaired inspite of seven surgeries. Capacity and loss of use of limb is liable to be considered as graver than the loss of limb. Lost limb is a loss, but capacity of loss to use a limb is too a severe and continues to be a life time liability. 18] The learned Tribunal has considered the earning capacity of the respondent no. 1 on random basis relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Sampath vs. United India Insurance Co. ltd. & Anr. 2011 ACJ 2466 , where loss of earning capacity was expected to be between Rs.4,90,000/- to Rs.6,12,000/-, and is without any further discussions in detail considered loss of future income of claimant to be only Rs.2,00,000/-. 19] It is seen that the claimant has not filed any cross objections or appeal being dissatisfied due to award of lesser amount under the head of loss of future income, and hence this court would adhere to the fact that the claimant – respondent is content with the award. 20] In this background this court considers that it will not be necessary to enhance the compensation under the head of future income. 21] On the basis of the discussions contained in the foregoing paragraphs, this court is satisfied that the judgment impugned is reasoned, well founded and does not call for interference whatsoever. 22] Appeal is devoid of merits, and is dismissed with full costs.