JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 29th May, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in claim petition No.27/G/07/10, titled Rajinder Sharma vs. Haryana Roadways and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,45,840/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and respondents No.1 and 3 i.e. Haryana Roadways and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., respectively, were saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. Learned counsel for the insurer/respondent No.3 stated that the insurer has to satisfy its liability to the extent of Rs.5.00 lacs. Similar findings have been recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award, which have not been challenged by the Haryana Roadways. Thus, in case the amount is to be enhanced, Haryana Roadways is to be saddled with the liability. 3. The Haryana Roadways, the ICICI Lombard and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. Thus, the only question needs to be determined in this appeal is – Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is adequate? 6. To answer the above question, it is necessary to give a brief reference of the facts of the case. 7. The claimant filed the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), for grant of compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident, which had taken place on 2nd July, 2006 at about 4.40 a.m. It was averred in the claim petition that the claimant on the fateful day, boarded the bus bearing No.HR-38L-7817 from Delhi to his native place in District Kangra, H.P. The offending bus was being driven by its driver, namely, Jai Kishan rashly and negligently and when the same reached at Ropar, it collided with a Truck Tralla bearing No. RJ-19GA- 0058, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries, was taken to Civil Hospital, Ropar from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Hence, the claim petition filed by the claimant injured for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.25.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the same. 8. Respondents resisted the claim petition by filing replies. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed: “1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HP-38L-7817 by respondent No.2? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioner is entitled? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.2 had not been in possession of valid and effective Driving licence, if so to what effect? OPR-3 4. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries on account of negligence of driver of Bus NO.RJ-19GA-0058, if so to what effect? OPR-1 5. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable against respondent No.6? OPR-6 6. Whether the vehicle NO.RJ-19GA-0058 was being plied in contravention of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, if so to what effect? OPR-6 7. Relief.” 10. Parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour of the claimant, as detailed above. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and is required to be enhanced. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the effect of 80% permanent disability suffered by the claimant has not been assessed by the Tribunal in its proper perspective and also has failed to award compensation under both heads i.e. pecuniary and non-pecuniary. 13. All the issues came to be decided against the respondents. They have not questioned the said findings. The claimant has also not questioned the same, except on the ground of adequacy of compensation, thus attained finality. 14. It is apt to record herein that an appeal under Section 173 of the Act is essentially similar to an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short CPC). The Apex Court in its latest decision in case titled as U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Km. 14. It is apt to record herein that an appeal under Section 173 of the Act is essentially similar to an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short CPC). The Apex Court in its latest decision in case titled as U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Km. Mamta and others, AIR 2016 SC 948 , has held that an Appeal under Section 173 of the Act is essentially alike Section 96 of the CPC and, therefore, the Appellate Court is under legal obligation to decide all issues, after appreciating the entire evidence. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 24 of the said judgment hereunder: “24. An appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence. [See National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., 2000 10 SCC 158 and State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Navdeep Kuur & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 680 ].” 15. Thus, this Court has determined all issues in terms of the mandate of Section 173 of the Act. 16. Coming to the controversy of adequacy of compensation, it has been proved on record that the one leg of the claimant was amputated. Disability certificate has been proved on record as Ext.PW-1/F which shows that the claimant-injured sustained 80% disability, which is permanent in nature. It has also been proved on record that the claimant remained under treatment for a pretty long time. 17. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787 and Kavita versus Deepak and others, 2012 AIR SCW 4771, has clearly laid down the principles as to how compensation has to be awarded in cases where the claimants have suffered permanent disability and how the assessment is to be made. 18. 18. The Apex Court in its latest decision in Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir and others, (2015) 7 SCC 252 , while discussing its earlier pronouncements, observed that in injury cases, the compensation would include not only the actual expenses incurred, but the compensation has to be assessed keeping in view the struggle which the injured has to face throughout his life due to the permanent disability and the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment, loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering to undergo for the whole life etc. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 18 of the said decision hereunder: “11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to struggle and face different challenges as being handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to do his normal work of his job as a driver. Therefore, it is submitted that to meet the ends of justice it would be just and proper to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma caused to him and a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. …………. …………… …………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. …………. …………… …………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. and considering the suffering undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.” 19. The claim of the appellant for enhancement has to be tested in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions supra. 20. Admittedly, the claimant suffered 80% permanent disability, remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh and in Baraj Life-Care Hospital & Trauma Centre, Jalandhar. The claimant has proved on record bills in respect of the expenses incurred by him for purchase of medicines etc. as Exts.P-1 to P-63. As per these bills, the total expenditure incurred by the claimant on the purchase of medicines comes to Rs.3,07,077/-. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/-, without taking into account the medical bills proved on record by the claimant, which amount is on the lower side. 21. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.3,07,077/- is awarded in favour of the claimant-injured under the head medical expenses incurred. 22. The next question to be determined is whether the permanent disability suffered by the claimant has affected his earning capacity. The claimant has specifically pleaded and proved that due to the accident, his one leg was amputated and that he had suffered 80% permanent disability, as is clear from Ext. PW-1/F i.e. disability certificate. Thus, it can safely be concluded that he would not be able to perform his job, and thus, the injury suffered by him has affected his earning capacity completely, leave apart distorting his physical frame. 23. It has been pleaded that the claimant was working as Salesman with Sai Baba Traders New Delhi and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, it can safely be concluded that he would not be able to perform his job, and thus, the injury suffered by him has affected his earning capacity completely, leave apart distorting his physical frame. 23. It has been pleaded that the claimant was working as Salesman with Sai Baba Traders New Delhi and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Reliable evidence has not been led by the claimant in order to hold that the monthly income of the claimant, at the time of accident, was Rs.8,000/-, as was pleaded in the claim petition. Now-a-days, even a labourer does not earn less than Rs.4,500/- per month. Thus, the monthly income of the injured, by exercising guess work, can be said to be Rs.4,500/- per month. 24. In view of the above, the next question arises as to what is the just and appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case. It has been pleaded that, at the time of accident, the claimant was 45 years of age. The Tribunal has fallen into an error in applying the multiplier of 13. Having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 read with the 2nd Schedule attached with the Act, it is held that multiplier of ‘12’ is just and appropriate, and is applied accordingly. 25. Having said so, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.4,500 x 12 x 12 = Rs. 6,48,000/- under the head ‘loss of future income’. 26. Apart from the above, The Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/-, under the head ‘pain and suffering’, which, in the facts of the case, is on the lower side. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that because of the accident, the physical frame of the claimant has been shattered, the claimant suffered a lot, which is evident from the fact that one leg of the claimant was amputated. Not only this, because of the disability suffered by the claimant, he has to struggle throughout his life. In the given circumstances, read with the law laid down by the Apex Court, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 27. Not only this, because of the disability suffered by the claimant, he has to struggle throughout his life. In the given circumstances, read with the law laid down by the Apex Court, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 27. The claimant is also deprived of all comforts and amenities, thus, is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 28. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the claimant is also entitled to attendant charges at least for the period for which he remained admitted in the hospital. The Tribunal in paragraph 21 of the impugned award has noted that the claimant, who appeared as PW-1, had stated that his wife remained with him for three months during the period he remained admitted in the hospital. Accordingly, by guess work, it is held that the claimant would have spent Rs.5,000/- per month on attendant charges and accordingly, held entitled to Rs.5,000 x 3 = Rs.15,000/- under the head ‘attendant charges’. 29. The claimant would have also spent at least Rs.200/- per day i.e. Rs.6,000/- per month on account of special diet during the period of treatment. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.6,000/- x 3 = Rs.18,000/- under the head ‘special diet’. 30. The Tribunal has not awarded anything under the head transportation charges. It is obvious that the claimant, to approach the hospital for treatment from time to time, would have hired taxi and would have spent a considerable amount on account of transportation. Therefore, I deem it proper to award Rs.25,000/- under the head ‘transportation charges’. 31. In addition to above, the claimant may have to undergo medical check-ups/treatment, at intervals, throughout his life. I deem it proper to award Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘future medical treatment’. 32. Having glance of the above discussion, the claimant is awarded Rs.13,63,077/-, under different heads, as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1. Medical expenses incurred Rs.3,07,077/- 2. Loss of future income Rs.6,48,000/- 3. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,50,000/- 4. Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,50,000/- 5. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/- 6. Special diet Rs.18,000/- 7. Transportation charges Rs.25,000/- 8. Future medical treatment Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.13,63,077/- 33. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of passing of the impugned award, till deposit. 34. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,50,000/- 4. Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,50,000/- 5. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/- 6. Special diet Rs.18,000/- 7. Transportation charges Rs.25,000/- 8. Future medical treatment Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.13,63,077/- 33. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of passing of the impugned award, till deposit. 34. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced. As stated by the learned counsel for the insurer that the insurer has already deposited the amount to the extent of its liability, therefore, the Haryana Roadways i.e. respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount, alongwith interest, in favour of the claimant, through his bank account after proper identification. 35. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.