JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —The claimant is the appellant, who aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation of Rs. 4,92, 378/- as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P., vide impugned award dated 11.12.2007 in M.A.C. No. 32/2004, has preferred the instant appeal. 2. Since none of the respondents has assailed the award so passed in favour of the appellant, therefore, only question that requires to be determined is quantum of compensation. 3. For completion of record, it may be observed that along the appeal, the appellant had filed an application (CMP No. 9457/2014) for leading additional evidence so as to prove future loss of income that had been denied by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the reasoning contained in para 30 of the impugned award, which reads thus: "30. Now the next vital question which arises for determination is the entitlement of the petitioner for future loss of income. In the statement of Doctor J.L.Bassi (PW-5) it has come that as per disability certificate Ext.PW5/A, the petitioner has suffered 100% temporary disability. From this certificate, it is not proved that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by him due to the accident, in question. However, on the record, the petitioner has brought disability certificate, Ext.PX which was tendered on 13.7.2007. I may mention that this certificate has been received in evidence subject to objection qua mode of proof raised on behalf of respondent No.3. The perusal of this certificate goes to show that it ahs been issued by Senior Medical superintendent, Zonal Hospital, Mandi (HP) . This certificate further reveals that it is not the original certificate because in it writing, starting from identification marks upto nature of disability is carbon copy. Similarly, the signatures of the doctors who were the members of the Board are not original. In these circumstances, when this certificate fails to inspire confidence and further that the petitioner has failed to prove it in accordance with law by examining the Doctors who issued it, I have been left with no other option but to hold that no reliance can be placed on this certificate. In this way, the petitioner has not succeeded in proving that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, in question, he has suffered permanent disability. In this way, the petitioner has not succeeded in proving that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, in question, he has suffered permanent disability. He could have been compensated for future loss of income only if the permanent disability would have been proved by him in accordance with law. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled for future loss of income." 4. As per the case set up by the appellant before the learned Tribunal, he had sustained injuries in a vehicular accident. He was firstly taken to District Hospital, Bilaspur for medical treatment on 7.11.2003, from where he was referred to IGMC Shimla and remained admitted there from 8.11.2003 to 3.1.2004. His fractured leg was operated twice at IGMC Shimla and thereafter third operation was conducted at DMC Ludhiana on 29.11.2005. He also remained admitted in IGMC Shimla from 10.1.2004 to 4.2.2004 and thereafter from 28.7.2004 to 25.10.2004. 5. The appellant in order to establish his future loss of income examined AW1 Hans Raj, Pharmacist, Zonal Hospital, Mandi, to prove the disability certificate, Ext.AW1 issued by the Zonal Hospital Mandi, wherein the disability of the appellant is recorded as 85% permanent in nature. 6. Dr. Sandeep Vaidya, Orthopedic Surgeon, Zonal Hospital, Mandi appeared as AW2 and stated that the disability certificate, Ext.AW1 had been issued by the Medical Board, Zonal Hospital, Mandi of which he was a member and the same contained his signature encircled ''A''. He further stated that the other members of the Board were Dr. Nag Raj Pawar, Pediatrician and Dr. D.V. Rana, Chairman, Medical Board. He further stated that the disability certificate pertains to the right lower limb and the disability was 85% permanent in nature. In crossexamination, this witness denied the suggestion that the disability suffered by the appellant was not affecting his day to day activities. He voluntary stated that the nature of disability suffered by the appellant would hamper his efficiency as a shop keeper as the person would not be in a position to lift heavy weight, even kneel and sit down. He stated that the injury as reflected in disability certificate, Ext.AW1, was an old injury and for this reason, the appellant had approached for grant of disability certificate. 7. He stated that the injury as reflected in disability certificate, Ext.AW1, was an old injury and for this reason, the appellant had approached for grant of disability certificate. 7. The respondents did not choose to lead any evidence in rebuttal and the said fact stands so recorded in the order passed by this Court on 1.1.2018. 8. Undeniably, road accidents are a human tragedy, which involves a high degree of human suffering. The ramifications of road accidents can be colossal and their negative impact is felt not only on individuals, their health and family welfare, but also on the economy of the country. This was so held by the Hon''ble Delhi High Court in Satya Prakash vs. State (Crl. Revision Petition No. 338 of 2009) decided on 11th October, 2013, as under: "1. Road accidents are a human tragedy, which involves a high degree of human suffering. The ramification of road accidents can be colossal and their negative impact is felt not only on individuals, their health and family welfare, but also on the economy of the country. They impose a huge socio-economic cost in terms of untimely deaths, injuries and loss of potential income. The World Health Organisation Global Status Report on Road Accidents, 2013 (in short WHO Report of 2013) estimates GDP loss due to road traffic accidents in our country to be 3 per cent which is higher than emerging and emerged economies like Russia (1.9) , Mexico (1.7) , Malaysia (1.6) , Brazil (1.2) , Turkey (1.1) , Korea (1.1) , New Zealand (0.02) , United Kingdom (1.2) , and United States (2.3) . 2. Our country has the dubious distinction of having the highest number of road accidents. According to the latest report of Road Transport Ministry, 4, 90, 383 road accidents were reported in 2012 resulting in 1, 38, 258 deaths i.e. an average of one road accident every minute resulting in one death every 3.8 minutes which is highest in the world. According to the WHO Report of 2013, India counts for about 10 per cent of road crash fatalities, meaning thereby that more people die in road accidents in India than in any other country. The WHO Report of 2013 estimates road traffic death rate per 100, 000 in India to be 18.9 as compared to 16.8 in the 2009 report. According to the WHO Report of 2013, India counts for about 10 per cent of road crash fatalities, meaning thereby that more people die in road accidents in India than in any other country. The WHO Report of 2013 estimates road traffic death rate per 100, 000 in India to be 18.9 as compared to 16.8 in the 2009 report. This rate is much higher than that of middle income countries such as Indonesia (17.7) , Nepal (16) , Burma (15) , Sri Lanka (13.7) , Bhutan (13.2) and Bangladesh (11.6) . Approximately half of the victims of road accidents in India are vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and passengers in buses & trucks) . The WHO Report further suggests that pedestrians account for 8.7 per cent of road deaths in India. According to the data released by National Crime Records Bureau, deaths by motor accidents account for 35.2 per cent of the total deaths in accidents in year 2012. 3. Human life is precious. The road users have a fundamental right to life and liberty which includes the right to safety and immediate payment of compensation in the event of unavoidable accidents. It is the duty of the State to ensure safety on roads and to ensure due process of law for expeditious payment of compensation in the event of injury or death of the road users arising out of the use of motor vehicles on the roads. 4. In Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab , (1979) 4 SCC 719 , Krishna Iyer J., made the following observation with respect to the chaotic conditions prevailing on Indian roads:- "1...More people die of road accidents than by most diseases, so much so the Indian highways are among the top killers of the country.... 4. In Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab , (1979) 4 SCC 719 , Krishna Iyer J., made the following observation with respect to the chaotic conditions prevailing on Indian roads:- "1...More people die of road accidents than by most diseases, so much so the Indian highways are among the top killers of the country.... x xx x xx x xx 2...Parking of heavy vehicles on the wrong side, hurrying past traffic signals on the sly, neglecting to keep to the left of the road, driving vehicles criss-cross, riding scooters without helmets and with whole families on pillions, thoughtless cycling and pedestrian jay walking with lawless ease, suffocating jam-packing of stage carriages and hell-driving of mini-buses, overloading of trucks with perilous projections and, above all, policemen, if any, proving by helpless presence that law is dead in this milieu charged with melee - such is the daily, hourly scene of summons by Death to innocent persons who take to the roads, believing in the bona fides of the traffic laws... 5. The precious lives of innocent persons are snatched away by the reckless acts of the drivers in motor accidents, and the victims or the kith and kin of the deceased persons are forced to face the brink of darkness of life. The harrowing tales of the hapless victims in the motor accidents speak volumes of heart-rending sufferings and pessimism in their lives. Serious injuries often cause lifelong disability for the victims which fundamentally affect quality of their life and that of their families. 6. The problem is more acute for the poor victims of road accidents as the death of the sole bread earner of the family leaving behind old and infirm parents, a helpless wife and minor children leads them to starvation. Similarly, permanent disability or an incurable injury to the sole bread earner leads the entire family of poor persons to an equally anomalous situation. The poor person injured in the accident does not have the funds for treatment and his sufferings are multiplied for want of treatment. 7. Injuries, fatalities and disabilities caused by motor accidents are also a major public health issue. An advance and effective post- accident care can reduce mortality after accidents. Unfortunately, the victims in most road accidents are left unattended, even though hospitals may be nearby or they are provided medical assistance with delay. 7. Injuries, fatalities and disabilities caused by motor accidents are also a major public health issue. An advance and effective post- accident care can reduce mortality after accidents. Unfortunately, the victims in most road accidents are left unattended, even though hospitals may be nearby or they are provided medical assistance with delay. One of the major reasons may be that the by-passers and other people present on the site of any accident avoid getting involved in long and tedious legal affairs. 8. Majority of road crashes involve human error. Careless driving puts the lives of others at risk. The driver not in full control of the vehicle becomes, all too often, a lethal weapon. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Therefore, those who fail to demonstrate responsibility forfeit their right to freedom. A rash, negligent, irresponsible or illegal driver has no business to be on the road. A greater level of scrutiny and accountability is required when life is lost or serious injury inflicted." 9. Now, the moot question is as to what enhanced amount of compensation is the appellant entitled to? 10. However, before answering said question, certain broad parameters for the purpose of grant of compensation in personal injuries cases need to be noticed. 11. In G. Ravindranath alias R. Chowdary vs. E. Srinivas and another , (2013) 12 SCC 455 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down the following heads under which the compensation in personal injury cases was determined: "12. It is settled law that compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the following heads: Pecuniary damages (special damages) 12.1. (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. 12.2. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment ; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. 12.3. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (general damages) 12.4.(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. 12.5.(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) . 12.6.(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity) . 12.7. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under Heads (i) , (ii) (a) and (iv) . 12.8. Non-pecuniary damages (general damages) 12.4.(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. 12.5.(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) . 12.6.(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity) . 12.7. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under Heads (i) , (ii) (a) and (iv) . 12.8. It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the Heads (ii) (b) , (iii) , (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life." 12. While awarding compensation especially for nonpecuniary loss, the Tribunals have to keep in mind several factors like pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of the claimant like age, unusual deprivation suffered, effect thereof on his/her future life. It is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Loss of amenities of life includes loss of expectation of life. Similarly the loss of expectation of life is concerned with the earning capacity. In R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others , (1995) 1 SCC 551 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under: "10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practicing lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame." 13. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame." 13. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others , (2013) 8 SCC 389 , summed up the legal position regarding award of compensation in injury cases as under: "28. This Court is required to keep in mind justice, equity and good conscience which must be the primary, relevant and important aspects for awarding just and reasonable compensation to an unfortunate victim, the appellant herein who has sustained grievous injuries to her body and whose future prospects are completely doomed. Further, the Tribunal and courts while awarding compensation for bodily injuries, must realise that the possession of one''s own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and that all other possessions and ownership are the extensions of the basic right. Bodily injuries should be equated with the deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages and the amount of damages varies in accordance with the gravity of injuries. 29. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to certain paragraphs which have been referred to by the Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy vs. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , (2004) ILR(Kar) 2471, wherein the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has considered the relevant important aspects from the judgment of this Court and the House of Lords and different learned scholars and authors of books on awarding pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The abovementioned decision states about the approach of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals and Courts for awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimants in relation to the bodily injuries suffered by them. It is worthwhile to extract paragraph 16 from K. Narasimha Murthy case , which reads as under: "16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision-making. There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one''s own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one''s own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries." 30. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited and Ors. , (1995) 1 SCC 551 , speaking about the heads of compensation, this Court has held thus: "9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include; (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." 31. Further, on this point, Justice Viscount Dunedin in Admiralty Comrs v. S.S. Valeria , (1922) 2 AC 242, at p. 248, has observed thus: "The true method of expression, I think, is that in calculating damages you are to consider what is the pecuniary consideration which will make good to the sufferer, as far as money can do so, the loss which he has suffered as the natural result of the wrong done to him". 32. 32. Further, Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Company, 1880 5 AC 25 at p. 39, has held as under: "Where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given. . . . you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the person who has been injured. . . . in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong." 33. Lord Morris in his memorable speech in H. West and Sons, pointed out this aspect in the following words: "Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace of like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But, the money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All the Judges and Courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Further, more it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparative injuries should be compensated by comparable awards." 34. In Ward v. James , (1966) 1 QB 273 at pp. 299-300, speaking for the Court of Appeal in England, Lord Denning laid down three basic principles while dealing with the question of awarding compensation for personal injury: "....Firstly, assessability: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases, otherwise, there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases, otherwise, there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to Court, a thing very much to the public good." "24.In deciding on the quantum of damages to be paid to a person for the personal injury suffered by him, the Court is bound to ascertain all considerations which will make good to the sufferer of the injuries, as far as money can do, the loss which he has suffered as. a natural consequence of the wrong done to him." 35. Further, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Basavaraj v. Shekar , (1987) ILR(Kar) 1399, has held as under: "8.....If the original position cannot be restored - as indeed in personal injury or fatal accident cases it cannot obviously be - the law must endeavour to give a fair equivalent in money, so far as money can be an equivalent and so ''make good'' the damage." "26.Therefore, the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the Court should award to injured person such a sum of money as will put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. But, it is manifest that no award of money can possibly compensate an injured man and renew a shattered human frame." 36. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in Parry v. Cleaver , (1970) AC 1 at p. 22, has said: ".....To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but. . . no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment". 37. The necessity that the damages should be full and adequate was stressed by the Court of Queen''s Bench in Fair v. London and North Western Railway Company, 1869 21 LT(NS) 326 . . . no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment". 37. The necessity that the damages should be full and adequate was stressed by the Court of Queen''s Bench in Fair v. London and North Western Railway Company, 1869 21 LT(NS) 326 . In Rushton v. National Coal Board , (1953) 1 QB 495 at p. 499, Singleton L.J. has said that: "When damages have to be assessed in a case of this kind there are many elements for consideration: the pain and suffering undergone and that which may occur in the future; the loss of some of the amenities of life; the fact that a man with an injury of this kind will always require some measure of help, even though he may be able to earn considerable money. These are some of the matters which have to be taken into consideration, and another is the fact that his earnings will probably be less than they were before." 38. In Fowler v. Grace, 1970 114 SolJo 193, Edmund Davies, L.J., has said that : "It is the manifest duty of the Tribunal to give as perfect a sum as was within its power''. There are many losses which cannot easily be expressed in terms of money. If a person, in an accident, loses his sight, hearing or smelling faculty or a limb, value of such deprivation cannot be assessed in terms of market value because there is no market value for the personal asset which has been lost in the accident, and there is no easy way of expressing its equivalent in terms of money. Nevertheless a valuation in terms of money must be made, because, otherwise, the law would be sterile and not able to give any remedy at all. Although accuracy and certainty were frequently unobtainable, a fair assessment must be made. Although undoubtedly there are difficulties and uncertainties in assessing damages in personal injury cases, that fact should not preclude an assessment as best as can, in the circumstances be made." 39. In Mediana , (1900) AC 113 at p. 116, the plaintiffs were deprived of the use of their own lightship, but sustained no pecuniary loss as another lightship was kept in reserve. In Mediana , (1900) AC 113 at p. 116, the plaintiffs were deprived of the use of their own lightship, but sustained no pecuniary loss as another lightship was kept in reserve. Yet, it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to substantial damages for the loss of the use of their ship for a period, and Lord Halsbury L.C. answered the objection that assessment was too uncertain by observing that: "....Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident ... But, nevertheless, the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may be given." "32.In personal injury cases, the Court is constantly required to form an estimate of chances and risks which cannot be determined with precision. It is because, the law will disregard possibilities which are slight or chances which are nebulous; otherwise, all the circumstances of the situation must be taken into account, whether they relate to the future which the plaintiff would have enjoyed if the accident had not happened, or to the future of his injuries and his earning power after the accident. Damages are compensation for an injury or loss, that is to say, the full equivalent of money so far as the nature of money admits; and difficulty or uncertainty does not prevent an assessment." 40. It is well-settled principle that in granting compensation for personal injury, the injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages. In personal injury cases the two main elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss. In personal injury cases the two main elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss. Chief Justice Cockburn in Fair''s case, supra, distinguished the above two aspects thus: "In assessing the compensation the jury should take into account two things, first, the pecuniary loss the plaintiff sustains by the accident : secondly, the injury he sustains in his person, or his physical capacity of enjoying life. When they come to the consideration of the pecuniary loss they have to take into account not only his present loss, but his incapacity to earn a future improved income". 41. McGregor on Damages (14th Edition) at paragraph no. 1157, referring to the heads of damages in personal injury actions, states as under: "The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the Courts have sub-divided the nonpecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life". Besides, the Court is well-advised to remember that the measures of damages in all these cases ''should be such as to enable even a tort feasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure''. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to ''hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing'', is quite apposite to be kept in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal injury cases." 42. In R. Venkatesh v. P. Saravanan & Ors. , (2001) 1 KarLJ 411 , the High Court of Karnataka while dealing with a personal injury case wherein the claimant sustained certain crushing injuries due to which his left lower limb was amputated, held that in terms of functional disability, the disability sustained by the claimant is total and 100% though only the claimant''s left lower limb was amputated. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Court held as under: "9. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Court held as under: "9. As a result of the amputation, the claimant had been rendered a cripple. He requires the help of crutches even for walking. He has become unfit for any kind of manual work. As he was earlier a loader doing manual work, the amputation of his left leg below knee, has rendered him unfit for any kind of manual work. He has no education. In such cases, it is well-settled that the economic and functional disability will have to be treated as total, even though the physical disability is not 100 per cent". 43. Lord Reid in Baker v. Willoughby , (1969) 3 AllER 1528 at p. 1532, has said: ".....A man is not compensated for the physical injury; he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury. His loss is not in having a stiff leg; it is in his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those amenities which depend on freedom of movement and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.... ." 14. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, it would be noticed that the learned Tribunal held the appellant to be entitled to compensation under the following heads: (i) Expenditure on medicines : Rs. 1, 72, 178/- (ii) Transportation charges : Rs. 26, 200/- (iii) Attendant charges : Rs. 72, 000/- (iv) Special diet : Rs. 20, 000/- (v) Loss of income : Rs. 72, 000/- (vi) Pain and suffer : Rs. 80, 000/- (vii) Loss of amenities etc. : Rs. 50, 000/- Total : Rs. 4, 92, 378/- 15. Indubitably, the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal was on the basis of the material placed before it and the same in no manner can be termed to be inadequate, however, now when it has been proved on record that the appellant has sustained 85% permanent disability in right lower limb, the compensation would have to be suitably increased. 16. No doubt, the appellant has claimed before the learned Tribunal and has reiterated before this court that he has worked as a driver, but then he has not been able to prove this fact and this aspect of the matter has been meticulously considered by the learned Tribunal. 16. No doubt, the appellant has claimed before the learned Tribunal and has reiterated before this court that he has worked as a driver, but then he has not been able to prove this fact and this aspect of the matter has been meticulously considered by the learned Tribunal. However, nonetheless, it cannot be ignored that the appellant has sustained 85% permanent disability of right lower limb and, therefore, is required to be adequately compensated. 17. The income of the appellant as assessed by the learned Tribunal has been taken to be Rs.3000/- per month, which by no standard can be said to be unreasonable. It is proved on record that the appellant at the time of accident was hardly 33 years old and looking to the nature of injury sustained by him, whereby he cannot even kneel or bend, the injury sustained by him has definitely adversely affected his earning capacity, which at any conservative level can be taken to be at least 50%. That apart, the earning capacity of the appellant cannot be taken to be static and reasonable increase of 40% whereupon should be applied to workout the loss of future income of the appellant. To this, a multiplier of 16 will have to be applied. Accordingly, in addition to the compensation already awarded in favour of the appellant by the learned Tribunal, as noticed above, he would now be entitled to the compensation towards future loss of income of Rs.4, 03, 200/- (2100 x 12 x 16) along with interest @ 6% per annum to be paid by respondent No.6-Insurance Company from the date of filing of CMP No. 9457/2014 i.e. 19.10.2013. Ordered accordingly. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s) , if any, also stands disposed of.