JUDGMENT : S.K. Awasthi, J. 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal No.1208/2005 and Miscellaneous Appeal No.1217/2005. 2. Miscellaneous Appeal No.1208/2005 is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 31.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity, the ‘Tribunal’) Sabalgarh, District Morena in Claim Case No.1/2005. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total of Rs. 3,21,300/- with interest to the appellant/claimant by way of compensation for the injuries which are sustained in an accident occurred on 29.11.2004. 3. The appellant/claimant filed a claim application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabalgarh, District Morena for compensation on account of permanent disability. The contextual facts are that on 29.11.2004 at about 11:00 AM, on the request of respondent No.2 Dilip Sharma, the appellant was tightening screw of the cutter attached with the tractor owned by respondent No.1 Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The respondent No.2 Dilip Sharma, all of sudden, started the tractor and put the gear of the tractor, as a result of which the cutter started functioning and the right hand of the appellant got amputated from the shoulder and he also sustained injuries in the ribs. The matter was reported to the Police Station Kailaras at Crime No.284/2004 and the case was registered against the respondent No.2 Dilip Sharma for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. It was averred that before accident the appellant was working as a Skilled Labourer and as a Milk Vendor by which he was earning Rs. 6000/- per month and due to accident, he has become permanent disabled and can not earn his livelihood. The appellant has claimed the amount of Rs. 14,16,000/- for compensation. 4. The claim petition was contested on various grounds denying the factual aspect also. The Insurer also contested the claim inter alia on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation because the vehicle was being used in contravention of the policy conditions and at the time of accident, the driver of the insured tractor was not having valid and effective driving license. After adducing the evidence the Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,21,300/- to the appellant/claimant. The appellant challenge quantum of compensation and prayed for its enhancement. After adducing the evidence the Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,21,300/- to the appellant/claimant. The appellant challenge quantum of compensation and prayed for its enhancement. The Insurance Company has filed cross appeal disputing its liability to pay compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award adequate amount in view of grevious injuries sustained by the claimant. The Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the appellant @ Rs. 2000/- per month whereas the appellant has categorically stated that he was working as a Skilled Labourer and Milk Vendor by which he was earning Rs. 6,000/- but the Claims Tribunal did not consider the same. Therefore, it is prayed that the amount of compensation may be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 4,95,000/- with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application. 6. Miscellaneous Appeal No.1217/2005 has been filed by the Insurance Company claiming that learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the alleged accident has occurred arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle as well as holding the cutter a part of the tractor. The accident caused out of use of alone motor of the tractor is not covered under the Motor Vehicle Act as well as Insurance Policy. Neither the cutter was insured nor any premium was charged for covering the damage arises form the use of the cutter by fitting it with tractor beyond the policy conditions. The award assessed by the learned Tribunal is on higher side and also against the evidence brought on record. 7. I have gone through the evidence adduced by appellant/claimant on the issue of injuries sustained by him. From the statement of appellant Rajaram, it appears that when he was tightening the screw of cutter attached with tractor, driver Dilip Sharma, all of a sudden, started tractor and put the gear of the tractor, as a result of which his right hand got amputated. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that since the offending tractor was insured and the cutter was being operated with the help of “motor of tractor”, which was not insured, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation but Mr. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that since the offending tractor was insured and the cutter was being operated with the help of “motor of tractor”, which was not insured, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation but Mr. Jaihind Babu Arya, the Assistant Administrative Officer of United Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Morena (NAW-1) had admitted in his cross examination that if the tractor is driven by fitting of the cutter to it then it will be presumed that the tractor was in use. 9. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Sardari Lal & Others, 2006 ACJ 943, wherein the tractor used for propelling wheat thresher and labourer woman was collecting wheat grain under the thresher when the driver started the tractor, thresher came in motion and the woman got wrapped with the belt resulting in her death. Himachal Pradesh High Court held that accident arose out of use of tractor. It was also observed that the tractor is not being plied on the road does not necessarily mean that an accident had not occurred arising out of the use of motor vehicle. 10. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Savthanji Khodaji Thakor, 2008 ACJ 2486 , wherein the Insurance Company sought to avoid its liability on the ground that the tractor was insured but not thresher, a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held that Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. 11. In the matter of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra and Others, 2011 ACJ 782, wherein the claimant was working on thresher and the thresher was being run with the aid of tractor for cutting Soyabeen. This was being done by the claimant when his right hand came in contact with the blade and his hand was cut in pieces. Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the accident occurred with the tractor/thresher. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. 12. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to differ with the view taken in these decisions because no decision taking any contrary view was relied on by learned counsel for the Insurance Company except to contend that the Insurance Company is not liable. 13. In view of forgoing discussion, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Accordingly Miscellaneous Appeal No.1217/2005 is hereby dismissed. 13. In view of forgoing discussion, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Accordingly Miscellaneous Appeal No.1217/2005 is hereby dismissed. 14. According to the claimant, since he lost his right hand above elbow at a young age of 24 years, the compensation awarded towards such loss amounting to Rs. 3,21,300/- is on lower side. According to him, the loss to him is 100% because he can never use his right hand for any purpose. 15. As per the appellant, he was hospitalized for undergoing treatment. Although the appellant has neither examined the doctor who treated him nor has filed any disability certificate but during the recording of the evidence, learned Tribunal has taken judicial notice that the right hand of the claimant is amputated above elbow joint. The appellant stated in his statement that prior to the accident, he was working as a Mason as well as Milk Vendor by which he was earning Rs. 6,500/- but he had not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate the loss of income. Therefore, his contention is not acceptable. It can be assessed that the appellant was working as a Labour and earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36000/- per annum from his job. 16. A privation of organ above elbow, which can be assessed at 70 %, must have been also taken as a like percentage of loss of earning capacity. I will apply 70 % loss of income resulting in monthly loss of Rs. 2100/- and will apply a multiplier of 17. I find the loss of earning capacity as Rs. 4,28,400/-. Thus, I will also make appropriate provision towards medical charges, transportation, special diet, loss of amenities of life by amputation individually and tabulate the same as follows:- S. No. Amount Awarded Heads 1. Rs. 428400=00/- Towards permanent disability 2. Rs. 25000=00/- Towards pain and suffering 3. Rs. 20000=00/- Towards reduction in life expectancy/loss of amenities 4. Rs. 3000=00/- Towards special diet 5. Rs. 6000=00/- Towards loss of income of two months 6. Rs. 3000=00/- Towards transportation 7. Rs. 4500=00/- Towards expenses incurred on attender Rs. 4,86,900=00/- Total Compensation 17. The total compensation that would become payable will be Rs. 4,86,900/-. The amount in excess of what has already been provided will attract interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of payment. Rs. 3000=00/- Towards transportation 7. Rs. 4500=00/- Towards expenses incurred on attender Rs. 4,86,900=00/- Total Compensation 17. The total compensation that would become payable will be Rs. 4,86,900/-. The amount in excess of what has already been provided will attract interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of payment. 18. In terms of the reasoning already given above, the award is modified and the Miscellaneous Appeal No.1208/2005 filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent indicated above. Order accordingly.