JUDGMENT : Sahidullah Munshi, J. This appeal is at the instance of the claimant/petitioner Gouri Sankar Mishra against a judgment and award dated 28th July, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas, in MAC Case No.46 of 2009 renumbered as MAC Case No.18 of 2009. Claimant is the appellant in this appeal. It is the case of the claimant/appellant that on 19th December, 2008 at about 8.30 p.m. near Lauhati Service Station (Petrol Pump) under Rajarhat Police Station a bus being the offending vehicle bearing No.WBS-3900 which was proceeding through Lauhati road in a most rash and negligent manner endangering human life and safety and violating all traffic rules and regulations, hit the claimant, knocked him down and ran over his right leg. As a result, the claimant/appellant sustained severe injuries on his person and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a sum of Rs. 6,90,000/- (Six Lakh Ninety Thousand) only as compensation plus cost and interest on account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. Respondent/owner did not contest the case whereas respondent/ insurance company contested the case by filing a written statement denying the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Respondent/Insurer also filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. From the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant/appellant it appears that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle on 19th December, 2008 and because of the said accident the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person and, ultimately, his right leg had to be amputated below the knee. Because of this amputation he has become permanently disabled person. According to the disability certificate given by the hospital he has been permanently disabled to the extent of 60% and unable to move or to do any normal work without assistance of anyone. He is a man of 46 years. He was working as a security guard at Protection Bureau and was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand) only from the said organisation per month. Apart from his job of security guard he used to earn a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand) only per month as a salesman of sari. He had already spent more than Rs. He was working as a security guard at Protection Bureau and was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand) only from the said organisation per month. Apart from his job of security guard he used to earn a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand) only per month as a salesman of sari. He had already spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) only towards medical treatment and that he needs periodical check up and further that he would need continuous treatment for the rest of his life. PW 4, Dr. Susanta Kumar Biswas, in his deposition stated that on 12th February, 2010 one disability certificate was issued from the Board of Nadia District Hospital, Krishnanagar in favour of the claimant/appellant and it was further stated that there had to be an amputation below knee on the right leg having 60% disability. The appellant’s disability certificate was marked Exhibit 11. The doctor, PW 4 also brought the handicapped certificate register of the hospital while deposing before the Claims Tribunal and the said register was marked Exhibit 12. In cross-examination the said witness stated that he did not treat the claimant/appellant but that he has followed the guidelines given in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 13th June, 2001 for the purpose of assessment of disability of the claimant. 3. The Claims Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record, held that the claimant/appellant would only prove that he was working at the Protection Bureau as a security guard and his wages was Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand) only per month. It has also been held by the Tribunal that the claimant could not substantiate his other source of income. Tribunal Held that the petitioner was 45 years of age and he was entitled to the multiplier of 13. Accordingly, taking into account of his income of Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand) only per month, that is, Rs. 36,000/- (Thirty Six Thousand) only per year multiplied by multiplier 13 the claimant/appellant has been found entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,68,000/- (Four Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand) only but since his disablement was held to be 60%, the learned Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to Rs. 2,80,800/- (Two Lakh Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred) only as compensation. In addition to the said sum the Tribunal has also held that the claimant would be entitled to medical bills for a sum of Rs. 2,80,800/- (Two Lakh Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred) only as compensation. In addition to the said sum the Tribunal has also held that the claimant would be entitled to medical bills for a sum of Rs. 23,925/-(Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Five) only, Rs. 2,295/- (Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Five) only and Rs. 5,278/- (Five Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Eight) only which makes a total of Rs. 3,12,298/- (Three Lakh Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Eight) only. As regards non-pecuniary loss as detailed in the claim petition, the Tribunal has assessed it at Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) only on account of injury, normal longevity of the life of the person concerned being shortened, disfigurement and discomfort or inconvenience, hardship, disappointment and frustration. Accordingly, the claimant/appellant was made entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,12,298/- (Four Lakh Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Eight) only. The Tribunal directed the Insurer to issue an account payee cheque of Rs. 4,12,298/- (Four Lakh Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Eight) only in the name of the petitioner within one month from the date of the award together with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case, that is, 16th January, 2009 till payment of the entire amount. 4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award the claimant has filed the instant appeal praying for enhancement of the award on the ground that – (i) The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards mental and physical shock pains and sufferings already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) Damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life, that is, on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) Damages for the loss of expectation of life, that is, on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened and (iv) Inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointments, frustrations and mental stress in life. 5. The appellant/claimant has, therefore, prayed for adequate compensation together with interest @ 8% per annum towards the total claim amount. 6. In support of the appellant’s claim for enhancement, Mr. Banik, learned advocate, relied on a judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi – Vs. – Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 1995 ACJ 366. 5. The appellant/claimant has, therefore, prayed for adequate compensation together with interest @ 8% per annum towards the total claim amount. 6. In support of the appellant’s claim for enhancement, Mr. Banik, learned advocate, relied on a judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi – Vs. – Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 1995 ACJ 366. In the said case the claimant/petitioner was a patient of paraplegia below the waist resulting in total permanent disability. The Supreme Court held that the said claimant was a practising lawyer and would require continuous treatment throughout his life; he required attendant and catheterisation at all times. In that case Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 26,25,992/- (Twenty Six Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Two) only which was reduced in appeal to a sum of Rs. 8,57,352/- (Eight Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Two) only. But in an appeal the Hon’ble Apex Court disallowed the deduction made by the High Court. The said case is not of any help to Mr. Banik because the fact of the said case and the case at hand is totally different. Mr. Banik has also relied on a decision in the case of Sri Kesto Saha – Vs. – New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2002 WBLR (Cal) 808. In the said case Their Lordships, based on R.D. Hattangadi’s case (supra) came to a conclusion that where injury leads to life incapacitation, the injury itself, according to its gravity, entitles a victim to substantial damages on account of non-pecuniary losses. Their Lordships have also held that intensity of mental shock, agony and distress is obvious and requires no formal proof. Proof of disablement is sufficient. But, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has assessed the damages towards non-pecuniary loss and has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) only which we feel just and proper. Therefore, the said judgment is also of no help to Mr. Banik. Mr. Banik also cited an unreported decision of our Court in FMA 967 of 2009 passed by Their Lordships the Hon’ble Justice Tapan Kumar Dutt and the Hon’ble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chowdhury (as Their Lordships then was). In the said judgment Their Lordships awarded an amount for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life of the victim and a sum of Rs. Mrinal Kanti Chowdhury (as Their Lordships then was). In the said judgment Their Lordships awarded an amount for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life of the victim and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Seventy Five Thousand) only has been awarded to the claimant for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. In the present case, however, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1 Lakh taking into consideration of non-pecuniary loss on different heads including amenities of life. Therefore, we are not inclined to add any further amount separately for the amenities and enjoyment of life. Mr. Banik has also cited a decision of 3-Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. – Vs. - Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in 2013 ACJ 1253. By citing the said report Mr. Banik has drawn our attention with regard to addition of some amount towards future prospects but on perusal of the said report it appears that Their Lordships of the Apex Court have held as follows : “36. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30 per cent if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.” 7. According to the said judgment and particularly the passage as quoted above we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.” 7. According to the said judgment and particularly the passage as quoted above we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Banik for addition of any amount towards future prospect because the said report says that in cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. The Apex Court held that a departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and in very exceptional cases. We do not deem it to be an extraordinary circumstance and/or an exceptional case so that we could deviate from the above principle. 8. Mr. Sanjay Paul, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/Insurer, has strenuously argued that the learned Tribunal has passed a just award and there is no scope for enhancing the same. 9. Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal is obliged to withdraw compensation which is just and proper. In assessing compensation, the Tribunal is obliged to take into account loss of earning capacity. The loss of earning cannot be calculated in terms of percentage of disability specified in a medical report alone. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in Kapil Kumar – Vs. – Kudrat Ali & Ors. reported in (2002) 4 SCC 337 . 10. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rekha Jain – Vs. – National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 389 , where the Supreme Court considered the impact of the functional disability on the nature of vocation/career/job of the claimant and treated the permanent physical disability of disfigurement of face of a model and film and television actress, at 100% permanent disability, considering her inability to perform as an actress or as a model in future. 11. In this case, though the disability as per medical reports is 60%, as observed above, the appellant/claimant, who was working as a Security Guard has been amputated from the knee downwards. The appellant/claimant will never be able to perform the same job. 11. In this case, though the disability as per medical reports is 60%, as observed above, the appellant/claimant, who was working as a Security Guard has been amputated from the knee downwards. The appellant/claimant will never be able to perform the same job. There can hardly be any doubt that anyone engaging a Security Guard would look for an able-bodied healthy person, who would be able to resist trespassers and/or intruders. 12. With an amputated leg, it would perhaps even be difficult for the appellant/claimant to earn a living as a vendor or a peddler. The claimant has been reduced to this state by reason of the wrongful act and/or negligence of the Motor Vehicle for which the owner of the motor vehicle and/or the Insurer is liable to compensate him adequately. 13. In the above context we have considered it seriously that the claimant has undergone amputation below his knee on the right leg and although, the disability certificate has been furnished to the extent of 60% disability but, having regard to the fact that with this disability the claimant cannot move freely, cannot work in any other organisation or cannot earn his livelihood independently, we deem it proper to hold that the claimant had suffered almost permanent disablement to the extent of 90% and, accordingly, the award is required to be modified. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,68,000/- multiplied by 90/100 = Rs. 4,21,200/- Add Rs. 23,925/- (Medical expenses) + Rs. 2,295/- (Medical expenses) + Rs. 5,278/- (Medical expenses) Rs. 4,52,698/- Add Rs. 1,00,000/- (towards non-pecuniary loss) Rs. 5,52,698/- 14. The petitioner will also get interest over the said amount @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case. The respondent/Insurer is directed to issue an account payee cheque in favour of the appellant/claimant on the aforesaid sum less any amount if already paid, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the respective parties upon compliance of all formalities. Banerjee, J. : I agree.