Judgment : 1. The appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 66 of 2005 on 22/01/2008. The appeal is by the original claimant who is dissatisfied by the quantum of the compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2. The relevant facts are: The accident took place on 1st March, 2005. The claimant, along with his friend, was going on a scooty and the truck which was driven by the respondent no.1 hit the scooty from its rear side and dragged the scooty along with the claimant and the pillion rider to a distance of two metres, causing injuries as mentioned in the Claim Petition. The claimant has stated that at that time his age was 21 years and he was working as a Supervisor with M/s. Three Stars Contractors, K. K. Products, Ponda, Goa and was receiving Rs.4,500/- per month as salary plus he was getting other allowances. The claimant had made claim of Rs.7,00,000/- towards the compensation in the Claim Petition but after the evidence was recorded and the matter was fixed for arguments, the claimant had filed an application for amendment and sought compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-. 3. The respondent no.1, who was driving the truck and the respondent no.2, the owner of the truck, filed joint written statement opposing the claim of the claimant. They stated that the claimant has without noticing the traffic coming from the rear side, abruptly stopped his motorcycle in the middle of the road which was never expected by the respondent no.1 and because of this the accident had occurred. Alternatively, it is submitted by the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 that the claimant has also to be held liable for the contributory negligence on his part. It is stated that the truck was insured with the respondent no.3 and, therefore, if any liability is fixed, then the respondent no.3 would be liable to pay the compensation. 4. The respondent no.3 filed its written statement and admitted that the truck was insured with it at the time of the accident. The respondent no.3 submitted that its liability to pay the compensation would arise only if it was proved that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. 5. The learned Presiding Officer proceeded with the trial of the Claim Petition. The claimant examined three witnesses including himself. The respondent no.3 submitted that its liability to pay the compensation would arise only if it was proved that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. 5. The learned Presiding Officer proceeded with the trial of the Claim Petition. The claimant examined three witnesses including himself. The respondents had not examined any witness. 6. The learned Presiding Officer, by the impugned award, concluded that the claimant had proved that the respondent no.1 was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his scooty. The learned Presiding Officer concluded that the claimant had proved that he had suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability because of the accident. The learned Presiding Officer has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the future loss of income on account of the permanent disability and of Rs.57,000/- under the other heads that is loss of income, pain and suffering, transport, attendant and special diet charges and medical expenses. The learned Presiding Officer has granted interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.57,000/-from the date of filing of the petition till the date amount is paid to the claimant. 7. Heard Shri Gaonkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. I have examined the records with the assistance of the learned Advocate. The following points arise for determination: 1) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation towards permanent disability? 2) Whether the claimant is entitled for additional amount under the head “pain and sufferings”? 3) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation under the head of “loss of amenities”? 4) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation for the adverse effect on his marriage prospects? 5) Whether the claimant is entitled for the interest on the amount of compensation granted for the future loss of income in view of the permanent disability? 8. The Tribunal has given a finding that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the respondent no.1. It is undisputed that the respondent no.2 was the owner of the truck and the truck was insured with the respondent no.3. These findings are not challenged by the respondents. Therefore, the claim as made by the appellant for the enhancement of the compensation under the various heads, only is required to be considered in this appeal. 9. It is undisputed that the respondent no.2 was the owner of the truck and the truck was insured with the respondent no.3. These findings are not challenged by the respondents. Therefore, the claim as made by the appellant for the enhancement of the compensation under the various heads, only is required to be considered in this appeal. 9. Shri Gaonkar, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has suffered 60% permanent disability in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This is because of physiological loss of function of finger and forearm of the appellant as per the medical certificate dated 16/12/2005 (Exhibit 45) issued by the Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Goa Medical College, Bambolim, Goa. The appellant has examined Dr. Zelio D'Mello as the witness who has certified that the appellant has suffered 60% permanent disability of the left upper limb, according to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and that the appellant would not be able to use the left hand for any purpose. The respondents have not been able to bring anything to the contrary on the record in the cross-examination of Dr. Zelio D'Mello. The fact that the appellant has suffered 60% disability as per the scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the appellant would not be able to use his left hand for any purpose, goes unchallenged. The learned Presiding Officer has also concluded in favour of the appellant in this regard. The appellant in his evidence has stated that after the accident both his hands became useless and he was not in a position to move his hands and his employer terminated his services from the date of the accident and he is jobless and could not get any other job. The respondents have not been able to bring anything contrary on record in the cross-examination of the appellant in this regard. Dr. Zelio D'Mello stated that the appellant had suffered permanent disability amounting to 60% of the left upper limb. If this evidence is considered in the light of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v/s. Ajay Kumar and Another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the permanent functional disability of the body of the appellant has to be assessed at 30%. If this evidence is considered in the light of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v/s. Ajay Kumar and Another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the permanent functional disability of the body of the appellant has to be assessed at 30%. As the permanent disability is of left upper limb, the loss of future earning capacity of the appellant will have to be assessed at 30%. At the time of accident the appellant was 21 years old, consequently the multiplier of 18 has to be applied. Considering the income of the appellant as Rs. 4500/-per month as per the findings of the Tribunal, which is not challenged, the amount of compensation for which the appellant is entitled under the head "loss of future earning" would be Rs.2,91,600/-. 10. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant would be entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for the loss of amenities. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant has suffered permanent disability in respect of his upper left limb and this has diminished his marriage prospects and for this he is entitled for additional compensation. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Alias Laxman Mourya vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 756 . The Supreme Court has laid down that if a victim of an accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, sufferings and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earning and the victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the loss of prospects of marriage also a factor for granting the compensation. The learned Advocate has relied on the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Nagarajappa v/s Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 323 . In this case, the claimant who was working as a coolie had suffered disability of left hand in the accident. The learned Advocate has relied on the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Nagarajappa v/s Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 323 . In this case, the claimant who was working as a coolie had suffered disability of left hand in the accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the disability which was suffered by the claimant would affect the quality of work and his ability to find work and granted Rs.40,000/- under the head of "loss of amenities". The facts of the present case are similar to the above referred case. The appellant in this case was working as the Supervisor and has suffered permanent disability of 60% in respect of his left upper limb. The Doctor has stated in the evidence that he would not be able to use his left hand for any purpose. Considering the test applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, I am of the view that the appellant in this case is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head "loss of amenities" including the loss of prospects of marriage. 11. The Tribunal has granted Rs.27,773.32 ps. for medical expenses to the appellant after considering the material on the record. The appellant has not been able to produce any material on the record to make further claim under this head. Therefore, the conclusions of the Tribunal in this regard are maintained. The Tribunal has granted Rs.5,000/-to the appellant for transport, attendant charges and special diet which in my view is proper. The Tribunal has granted Rs.13,500/- to the appellant towards the loss of salary for three months after the accident when the appellant was hospitalized. In my view, these conclusions are proper. 12. The Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/-to the appellant as compensation under the head of "pain and sufferings". The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant would be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- as compensation under the head "pain and sufferings" and for this he relied on the judgment in the case of Nagarajappa ( supra). It is very difficult to calculate the amount of compensation for the "pain and sufferings" of the appellant. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant would be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- as compensation under the head "pain and sufferings" and for this he relied on the judgment in the case of Nagarajappa ( supra). It is very difficult to calculate the amount of compensation for the "pain and sufferings" of the appellant. However, considering the nature of disability suffered by the appellant, the amount of compensation under this head is assessed at Rs.40,000/- as granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagarajappa (supra) the facts of which are similar to the present case. 13. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant would be entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum on the entire amount from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition till the amount is paid to the appellant. According to the appellant, the Tribunal has committed an error in not granting interest on the amount of compensation under the head “loss of further income”. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar (supra). In paragraph no.29 of the above mentioned judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that the interest granted by the Tribunal shall be paid from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition till the payment is made to the claimant. In view of this, I hold that the appellant is entitled for the interest @9% per annum on the amount of compensation payable to him, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the amount is paid to the appellant. 14. In view of the above, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The appellant is entitled for the amount of Rs.4,77,873.32ps (Rounded up to Rs.4,78,000/-) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date filing of the petition till the entire amount is paid to the appellant. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the appellant. The amount already paid to the appellant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and otherwise should be adjusted while making the payment and while calculating the interest to be charged on the amount to be paid to the appellant. The appellant shall be entitled for the proportionate costs from the respondents jointly and severally. 15. The amount already paid to the appellant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and otherwise should be adjusted while making the payment and while calculating the interest to be charged on the amount to be paid to the appellant. The appellant shall be entitled for the proportionate costs from the respondents jointly and severally. 15. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.