JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the award dated 29.01.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.333 of 2009, the appellant/claimant have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by questing correctness of contributory negligence fixed against claimant and inadequate compensation granted by the tribunal under various heads. 2. It is the case of grievous injury/amputation of right leg suffered by the injured claimant, who was working as Driver and earned Rs. 7,500/- pm and he was only 32 years and accident happened on 15.03.2009. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent car driver 60% as contributory negligence, and relying Ex.P-4 Rough Sketch and fixing 40% contributory negligence against claimant and directing the second respondent insurance company, to pay their liability, and the Tribunal held that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Based on the pleadings and evidences the learned tribunal granted compensation under following heads:- Sl. No. Head Amount awarded by the Tribunal 1 For Permanent Disability (Rs.3,000 X 12 X 16 X 60/100) Rs.3,45,600/- 2 Medical Bills Ex.P10 Rs.2,85,144/- 3 Pain and Suffering Rs.30,000/- 4 Loss of Amenities Rs.30,000/- 5 Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/- 6 Transport Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.7,10,744/- Deducted 40% negligence and Awarded Rs.4,26,446/- 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that tribunal ought not to have merely relied on Ex.P-4, Rough sketch without any evidence led by the respondents more particularly, the offending vehicle driver and has fixed the contributory negligence as against the claimant. As per rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 44 (SC) in Jiju Kuruvila Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan, it is categorically held that rough sketch cannot be relied without independent witness to fix any contributory negligence. Therefore finding of tribunal is perverse, incompetent and liable to set aside in limini. And entire negligence, liability has to be fixed against the respondents herein. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently contented that the Tribunal by appreciating the entire evidences and granted compensation by fixing contributory negligence relaying Rough Sketch and applying multiplier method and other heads also awarded in reasonably, hence he pray for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 6. Admittedly, the Respondents has not produced any evidence or documents much less any independent witness to fix any negligence on the part of claimant and as per dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court the rough sketch marked as Ex.P-4 is can’t be conclusive proof to determine contributory negligence against any person. It is useful to extract para 24 of the above rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in of 2013(2) TNMAC 44 SC. “24. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a Scene Mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on number of factors like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident caused, but in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.” 7. Hence, this court no hesitation to conclude that there can’t be any contributory negligence against claimant in the absence of contra evidence and therefore the contributory negligence of 40% fixed against injured claimant is liable to set aside and accordingly the entire negligence fixed on the part of offending vehicle car driver and they are liable to pay entire compensation. 8. Next with regard to quantum of compensation arrived by tribunal is just and reasonable. 8. Next with regard to quantum of compensation arrived by tribunal is just and reasonable. The Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that as per Ex.P.2, wound certificate and Ex.P7 Series the various discharge summary and also Ex.P8 to Ex.17 are medical records would show that the injured suffered grievous injuries and suffered amputation right leg below knew and evidence of PW-2, PW-3, there was injuries, multiple fracture in right shoulder and Doctors has categorically deposed that due to the impact of the injuries there was restricted movement of right shoulder and amputation of right leg below knee and the injured underwent surgery and further it is argued that due to the impact of the injuries the injured could not able to continue his earlier avocation driver. Though the tribunal rightly applied multiplier method but however the income taken is very low and future prospects of 40% not considered. Moreover the doctor has fixed 80% permanent disability; but however without any contra evidence the tribunal reduced to 60% which itself affects the entire earlier avocation of the injured. Hence, the appellant injured pray for enhancement of compensation with regard to loss of earning capacity and other conventional heads. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant further relying the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, PW3, are Doctors, and argued that, it is rightly applied multiple method without adding 40% towards future prospects as per ruling of Pranny Sethi Constitution judgment, since injured is only 32 years and taking monthly income of Rs.7,500/- instead of granting Rs.3,000/- since due to the impact of the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant was not able to attend the driving profession, hence pray for enhancement of compensation by applying multiplier method based on the notional income for accident of the 2009 and seeking enhancement in the conventional heads. 10. On appreciating the entire evidence of the appellant has suffered grievous injuries resulting in amputation of right leg below knee and mal union in right shoulder tribunal taken only 60% permanent disability is not correct , even then it will affect entire earlier avocation appellant injured being driver, hence this Court accepts the arguments of the counsel for the appellant. 11. So far as the permanent disablement is concerned, the Doctor has certified the disablement at 80%. The percentage of physical disablement need not necessarily reflect the percentage of functional disablement. 11. So far as the permanent disablement is concerned, the Doctor has certified the disablement at 80%. The percentage of physical disablement need not necessarily reflect the percentage of functional disablement. The functional disablement would depend upon the nature of the job that the appellant is likely to have undertaken. Because of the disablement on account of amputation, even though the petitioner could not have been able to take up any job, involving both the legs, he would be in a position to do any job involving upper limbs alone. Therefore, the loss of earning capacity cannot be stated to be 100%. However, it is a fit case where, multiplier method has to be adopted to assess the loss of earning capacity. It is relevant to point out that due to the impact of the injuries injured have great difficulties in getting any job that too manual worker/coolie and to lead the life as like normal person and the accident happen during 2009, through the Tribunal rightly adopted multiplier method and failed to fix proper income. Hence this court taken income of Rs.7,500/-and applying proper multiplicand of 16, since the appellant aged 32 years and adding 40% towards future prospects and taken for whole body permanent disability of 80% as assessed by PW-2 Doctor. Thus, the future loss of earning capacity worked out as Rs.7,500/- x Rs.3,000 x 12 x 16 x 80/100, = Rs. 16,12,800/- instead of Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,45,600/-. 12. The learned counsel for appellant draw the attention of this court that as per the Ex.P10 the appellant spent a sum of Rs.2,85,144/- towards medical expenses and the same is confirmed. 13. That the tribunal failed to consider that as per the evidence of PW1 he was inpatient for period from 15.02.2009 to 09.03.2009 in the Rex Ortho Hospital at Coimbatore and underwent several surgeries viz. 16.02.2009, 23.02.2009 and 27.02.2009 and thereafter taking treatment in continues which was clearly proved through the medical records, therefore this court considering the agony suffered by the injured claimant, it is deem fit to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. 14. 16.02.2009, 23.02.2009 and 27.02.2009 and thereafter taking treatment in continues which was clearly proved through the medical records, therefore this court considering the agony suffered by the injured claimant, it is deem fit to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. 14. As per the medical records it revealed that the injured taking treatment as inpatient for period from 15.02.2009 to 09.03.2009 in the Rex Ortho Hospital at Coimbatore and the Tribunal failed to reasonable amount under transport to hospitals, considering the same this Court awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant that considering the prolong treatments and nature of injuries the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded under head of extra nourishment is very low and same has been enhanced to Rs.30,000/- and with regard to damage of cloths and articles the sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. 15. As per rulings of this court reported in 2017 (1) TNMAC 427 considering claimants appeal for enhancement in the case of amputation in the following passage useful refer:- “4.3. Therefore, it is necessary to consider what is the pain in case of persons who suffer amputation. 4.4. Amputation of a body part, whether as a result of trauma or surgical intervention, is almost always associated with awareness of, and sensations referred to, the missing body part. These sensations were first noted by Ambroise Pare, a French military surgeon in the middle of the 16th century. Mitchel first used the term phanto in 1871 from his observations and medical studies of the American civil war. 4.5. Three phenomena occur after amputation (i) phantom sensation, (ii) stump pain and (iii) phantom pain. Phantom Sensation: 4.6. The term phantom sensation describes any sensation that is experienced in the absent part excluding pain. Its incidence is very high, with virtually all amputees describing phantom limb sensations. A variety of sensations can be felt, including the perception that the missing limb is still present and paresthesia occurring in the amputated limb. The phenomenon of telescoping occurs when the distal part of the missing limb is felt to recede back towards the stump. 4.7. Stump pain that occurs immediately after amputation is acute nociceptive pain and usually resolves after a few weeks as the wound heals. Infection or wound dehiscence may prolong postoperative pain in some cases. 4.8. The phenomenon of telescoping occurs when the distal part of the missing limb is felt to recede back towards the stump. 4.7. Stump pain that occurs immediately after amputation is acute nociceptive pain and usually resolves after a few weeks as the wound heals. Infection or wound dehiscence may prolong postoperative pain in some cases. 4.8. Stump pain can persist for much longer than the initial period of wound healing, lasting months or years. 4.9. Further, Reports (Primary Care to be given to the amputees) in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Official Journal of the Association Medicine and Psychiatry, answers the question - What Does Rehabilitation After Amputation Entail, and What Can Be Done to Enhance Resilience in Patients? Treatment after amputation involves planning a rehabilitation regimen (even prior to the surgery), managing the immediate postoperative period, planning for an appropriate level of care after discharge, and educating the patient and family to prevent complications. A rehabilitation regimen includes upper extremity strengthening for lower extremity amputations, transfer training, crutch walking or training in the use of a walker, and evaluation for equipment that may be needed at home (including a wheelchair and a bench for bathing safely). Prosthetic training is also given if the patient is eligible for a prosthetic and has the energy to learn to use it. Such a regimen needs to be tailored to the patient's motivation and capacity; the more actively engaged the patient can become even prior to the surgery, the better the post-amputation prognosis he or she may have. Discharge planning includes a home safety evaluation by occupational therapy and discussion with the patient and his or her family about what the patient's living situation can accommodate. It is important to include a discussion of the timeline of expected discharge in this process so that the patient is mentally prepared to leave the hospital after surgery and has activities or social contacts planned. Management during the immediate postoperative period includes pain management, psychological support, proper positioning of the residual limb (including elevation to prevent limb edema), evaluation of the limb dressing and placement of a cast, and inspection of sutures. The discomfort that can be associated with wearing a cast should be explained to the patient as necessary in the prevention of contractures, which can ultimately compromise mobility. The discomfort that can be associated with wearing a cast should be explained to the patient as necessary in the prevention of contractures, which can ultimately compromise mobility. Education of patients and their families is aimed at the care and prevention of complications; it includes attention to limb care and inspection, limb wrapping, prosthetic care, stump care, foot care, and emergency care and monitoring for early signs of infection. Patient inspection of the limb is particularly important if the patient has a prosthesis, as this should not be done if there is any possibility of infection. Limb wrapping often needs to be done several times a day. The prosthetic will require daily cleaning and inspection to prevent infection and to allow for maximal use. Stump socks must be scrupulously maintained to avoid risk to the site. Finally, preventive foot care (often with involvement of a podiatrist), as well as learning to recognize indications for emergency care, are important aspects for the prevention of a second amputation, for which lower extremity unilateral amputees are at high risk. Important ways in which the resilience of amputees can be enhanced include building up social supports and caregiver resilience; individual psychotherapy, psycho pharmacologic treatment, and reinforcement of the positive coping styles; and treatment of preexisting psychiatric disorders (which carry a poor prognosis for post amputation survival and function). 4.10. Therefore, in respect of amputation, the pain and sufferings should have been adequately compensated and having regard to the nature and extent of pain suffered by the amputee appellant, it is estimated at Rs.2,00,000/-.” 16. The Learned counsel for the appellant has placed his arguments that as per medical records and evidence of the PW1, there was a amputation of right leg below knee and mal union in right shoulder and he is married person and disfigurement in the body and there was a deep wound in the right shoulder in view of the same the Injured claimant could not walk in properly, taking paramount consideration it would be appropriate to award of Rs.2,00,000/- to towards for artificial limp and loss of marriage life. 17. The last contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company/second respondent is that the appellant has claimed only a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and enhancement more then claim is not justified. 18. 17. The last contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company/second respondent is that the appellant has claimed only a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and enhancement more then claim is not justified. 18. The claims Tribunal/Court are duty bound to award just compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence adduced. There is no ceiling limit for the Tribunal to award the compensation. The Claims Tribunal/Court is not bound by technical rules of evidence and when sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, provide for summary procedure, it should be consistent with the Rules of Natural Justice. It is appropriate to point out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2011 (10) SCC 683 (Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd.), wherein, it has been pointed out due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, such underestimated claims are made, therefore, the Tribunal should adopt a proactive approach and to award adequate compensation. The relevant observation reads as under: “A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons. Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liabilities minimized. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses' make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless. It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Section 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.” 19. Therefore, even though the Tribunal has failed in the duty to award just compensation, this Court, as the Appellate Court, should correct the mistake and to award just compensation. The amount of compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.” 19. Therefore, even though the Tribunal has failed in the duty to award just compensation, this Court, as the Appellate Court, should correct the mistake and to award just compensation. Thus, award tribunal modified and enhanced as follows:- S. No. Head Amount awarded by this Court 1 Loss of future earning capacity (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 16 x 80/100) Rs.16,12,800/- 2 Pain and Suffering and Mental Agony Rs. 2,00,000/- 3 Loss of Amenities Rs. 1,00,000/- 4 Extra Nourishment Rs. 30,000/- 5 Medical Bills as per Exs.P3 & P10 Rs. 2,85,144/- 6 Damage towards clothes and articles Rs. 5,000/- 7 Transport to Hospitals Rs. 20,000/- 8 Loss of marriage life and for artificial limp Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs. 22,52,944/- 20. As stated supra, the 40% contributory negligence fixed against claimant is set aside; and entire liability is fixed against the offending vehicle, which was insured with the Second respondent insurance company. Therefore, the Second respondent insurance company is liable to pay compensation of Rs.22,52,944/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 21. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. The compensation of Rs.4,29,446/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.22,52,944/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited, if any. 22. The appellant/claimant is directed to pay Court fee for the enhancement of compensation amount as awarded by this Court, if any. On payment of Court fee, the decree should be made ready. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw enhanced award amount with accrued interest on filing application before the Tribunal, less amount if already withdrawn.