JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09-04- 2009 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge (FTC) No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 177 of 2004. 2. Facts of the case is that the claimant met with an accident on 02-02-2004 while he was travelling from Guwahati to Khlienriat, Meghalaya in a bus bearing registration No. AS-01/P-0170, which overturned while negotiating a curve. The vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver and as a result, the bus overturned while negotiating a bend. 3. The claimant sustained severe injuries on both his arms, he went for medical treatment for quite a long time. However, the fractures on both his hands were grave which could not be cured and both his hands were amputed. The victim who is 25 years of age was supposed to be working as a Manager in a Coal Depot at Beltola earning Rs. 7,500 p.m. He was unable to continue his job as such, his loss of earning was projected to be 100%. 4. His treatment and other necessary certificates were exhibited from Civil Hospital, Shillong and also GMCH, Guwahati. The medical exhibits were Exhibit-2, Exhibit-3, Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-5. Exhibit-6 pertains to the identity card of persons with disability and Exhibit-8 relates to medical certificate issued by Dr.P.K. Padmapati. Exhibit-10 series are the estimate given by M/s Otto Bock Health Care Public Limited for artificial limbs. 5. So far as the medical evidences and the factum of the accident are concerned, it has not been denied and also the fact that the bus involved in the accident was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited who appears as respondent No.3 is not denied. Having examined the evidences brought before it, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,60,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of payment. 6. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the income of the victim which was said to be Rs. 7,500/- p.m. as proved by the injured himself was not considered and the learned Tribunal had arbitrarily fixed the income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. The artificial limb which was procured by the victim from M/s Otto Bock Health Care Public Limited cost the claimant an amount of Rs. 7,10,000/- which was added with Rs. 7,500/- p.m. as proved by the injured himself was not considered and the learned Tribunal had arbitrarily fixed the income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. The artificial limb which was procured by the victim from M/s Otto Bock Health Care Public Limited cost the claimant an amount of Rs. 7,10,000/- which was added with Rs. 10,000/- for maintenance yearly. The same was not considered by the learned Tribunal. The multiplier of 17 that was adopted was not done with the norms laid down by the Apex Court in Sharla Varmas case and hence, the multiplier should be considered as 18. The victim being 25 years and having lost his profession, future prospect should have been considered by the learned Tribunal in keeping with the ruling of the Apex Court which was denied to the claimant. Claimant is also entitled to expenses of attendant considering that he is now 100% disabled with both hands handicapped. Lastly, the appellant is dissatisfied with the rate of interest that is awarded as 6% and has pleaded for enhancement to 9% as is followed in all the claim petitions. 7. This being the grievance of the claimant, he has exhibited the medical certificates which are exhibited as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-9. Exhibit-10 series exhibit contains the estimate of artificial limb procured from M/s Otto Bock Health Care Public Limited. All these being proved documentarily and orally to the satisfaction of the learned Tribunal, the matter should have been considered by the learned Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, the New India Assurance Company Limited, Mr. R. Goswami, responding to the appeal petition has submitted that the income of the claimant was not substantiated by the claimant by documentary proof and hence, the learned Tribunal was justified to take notional income to compute the award as has been proved by the Apex Court and there can be no error. Secondly, the issue related to artificial limb which is supposedly procured by the victim at the cost of Rs. 7,10,000/- with additional Rs. 10,000/-for maintenance is not reasonable. There are several Government Institutions where artificial limbs are supplied to victim and to the handicapped people. When there is avenue for the claimant to acquire artificial limb free of costs from the Government Institutions, it would not be reasonable for incurring extraordinary expenses to be indemnified by the Insurance Company who is the custodian of public money. There are several Government Institutions where artificial limbs are supplied to victim and to the handicapped people. When there is avenue for the claimant to acquire artificial limb free of costs from the Government Institutions, it would not be reasonable for incurring extraordinary expenses to be indemnified by the Insurance Company who is the custodian of public money. Therefore, he has objected to the grant of award for expenditure on artificial limbs which is rather exorbitant. He has, in the alternative, suggested that the claimant may be referred to such Government Institutions where artificial limbs are supplied for free. 9. Pertaining to the issue of enhancement of the rate of interest from 6% to 9%, the learned counsel has argued that considerable amount of delay in disposal of the appeal petition has been caused due to the claimant/appellant keeping the appeal in cold storage and also by not attending the Court when the matter is called on. He has therefore, objected to consider the enhancement. With respect to the claim for award for expenses on attendant, considering that the victim is now disabled, the learned counsel has relied upon the Apex Court ruling in the case of Mr. R.D. Hattangadi-vs- Control (India) Private Limited and Others, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551 . In the mentioned case, the claimant was a successful advocate who was totally disabled and he had to be given assistance of his every move by an attendant in a wheel chair. In that circumstances, the Apex Court allowed the appellant Rs. 55,450/- for the present and Rs. 1,87,200/- for the future. However, the same yardstick may not be applied to the instant case as the claimant in the instant case is able to sustain himself for all other movement. Therefore, he has left the matter to the Court to exercise its wisdom on the issue. 10. The learned counsel has also relied upon the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Aspat Ali-vs-Naveen Hotels Limited and Another , reported in (2009) 2 SCC 755 wherein, the Apex Court dealt with amputation of limbs. However, no compensation was allowed on the ground of procurement of artificial limb. Hence, the same should be followed in our case also the present appeal petition being similarly situated. However, no compensation was allowed on the ground of procurement of artificial limb. Hence, the same should be followed in our case also the present appeal petition being similarly situated. Learned counsel has conceded that the Court may consider the matter relating to multiplier which should be considered as 18 and also the loss of future prospect which is payable. 11. On hearing the parties, the respondents are agreeable to accede to the issue for rectification of multiplier from 17 to 18. He is also agreeable to the appeal under head of the loss of future prospect. Therefore, there is need for no further discussion on the above 2 heads. On the issue of the income certificate, I am in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the claimant must prove his own case by substantiating his claim with documentary evidence which was not done by the claimant and he cannot take the benefit of his own mistake. The Apex Court has clearly ruled that in cases where the claimant does not documentarily prove his income, notional income may be adopted. Hence, the notional income adopted by the learned Tribunal is not interfered with. 12. On the issue of increase of percentage in interest, it has been observed that several fixures have been made on the request of the appellant which in fact clearly agitates against the appellant. It deserves to be dismissed considering that the matter relates to an accident involving the case of 02-02-2004. Hence, the matter of enhancement of interest cannot be considered. 13. On the issue of procurement of artificial limb, since the matter relates to 2004, it may not have been possible for the victim of accident to get artificial limb from the Government Institution at the relevant time when the free supply of artificial limbs was not fully implemented by the Government. Hence, it is partially justified that the victim should procure artificial limb on their own. However, the amount that has been mentioned which is Rs. 7,10,000/- along with interest of Rs. 10,000/- yearly maintenance is found to be too exorbitant. Reasonability must be borne in mind considering that indemnification from the Insurance Company is a loss of public fund which should not be lavishly spent on the ground that the expenses would be indemnified. Hence, Rs. 7,10,000/- along with interest of Rs. 10,000/- yearly maintenance is found to be too exorbitant. Reasonability must be borne in mind considering that indemnification from the Insurance Company is a loss of public fund which should not be lavishly spent on the ground that the expenses would be indemnified. Hence, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the artificial limb procurement and expenses thereto would be reasonable and is accordingly awarded. 14. The aspect of expenses on attendant is also examined and there is no doubt that the victim would be in need of continued attendant prior to his procurement of artificial limb as both the limbs have been amputed, I am of the view that another lump sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be granted for expenses on attendant would be a just compensation. The loss of future prospect of 40%, shall be added on notional income, the victim being from private company. 15. Thus, having discussed on all the areas where the parties are in dispute and having being answered, the final award to be given to the claimant is workout as follows:- Loss of future prospect: Notional monthly income = Rs. 3,000/- 40% of 3000x12 = Rs.14,400/- Adopt multiplier as 18 which is 18x14,400 = Rs.2,59,200/- 1. Loss of future prospects = Rs.2,59,200 2. Loss of earning 12x3000x18 = Rs.6,48,000 3. Medical expenditure = Rs. 18,000 4. Artificial limbs = Rs. 1,00,000 5. Expenditure on attendant (lumpsum) = Rs. 1,50,000 6. Future treatment = Rs. 1,00,000 7. Pain and suffering = Rs. 1,00,000 ___________________ Total Rs.13,75,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs seventy five thousand and three hundred) only 16. The New India Assurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 13,75,300/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs seventy five thousand and three hundred)only to the claimant by depositing the amount within two months of the passing of this order to the Tribunal. 6% interest shall be added to the awarded amount from the date of filing the claim petition. If any amount is paid to the claimant, shall be deducted from the total amount so awarded. 17. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Send back the L.C.R.