JUDGMENT : R. SUBBIAH, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant as against the Award dated 15.07.2020 made in M.C.O.P. No. 413 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No. 1), Salem, for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 21.04.2016 at about 6.30 a.m. when the claimant was riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-29-K-8109 on Dharmapuri-Salem Road, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-29-AK-4444, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner from behind and hit the claimant's two-wheeler, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was taken to hospital and his right leg below the knee was amputated. The Doctor had assessed the disability suffered by the victim at 80%. Hence, the claimant/injured filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 75,00,000/-. 3. The said claim petition was resisted by the second respondent- Insurance Company by filing counter statement before the Tribunal denying the manner in which the accident was projected by the appellant/claimant. It is the specific case of the second respondent/ Insurance Company that the claimant came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident by hitting on the rear side of the lorry. In fact, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered only against the claimant based on the statement of the driver of the lorry. The Insurance Company also denied the age, income of the claimant, his avocation, etc. Thus, the Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition. 4. In order to prove the claim, before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW-1, besides, an eye-witness to the accident was examined as PW-2 and Exs.P-1 to P-18 were marked on their side. 5. On the side of the Insurance Company, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and investigation report was marked as Ex.R-1. That apart, the FIR, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, final report, RCS notice, etc. were marked as Ex.C-1 as one document. 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident was on account of the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/claimant as well as on the driver of the lorry. That apart, the FIR, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, final report, RCS notice, etc. were marked as Ex.C-1 as one document. 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident was on account of the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/claimant as well as on the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal fixed 40% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and 60% on the part of the driver of the lorry. Thereafter, the Tribunal arrived at the compensation amount totally at Rs. 26,29,763/- and 60% of the same was arrived at Rs. 15,77,858/- and thereby directed the second respondent-Insurance Company to pay the said sum of Rs. 15,77,858/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 7. Now, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the specific case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that, while the appellant was proceeding in his two-wheeler, the lorry came from behind and hit the two-wheeler on its rear side. PW-1/claimant had also spoken about the manner of the accident. In such circumstances, the Tribunal by relying upon the evidence of PW-1, ought to have come to the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the lorry and instead of doing so, the Tribunal has fixed contributory negligence on the part of the victim/injured and thus, prayed for setting aside the finding of the Tribunal in fixing contributory negligence at 40% on the part of the claimant and consequently, direct the second respondent/Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation amount by fixing the liability wholly on the part of the driver of the lorry. 8. Countering the above submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that it is the victim/claimant who came behind the lorry and hit on the rear side of the lorry. In fact, the Police had filed referred charge sheet stating that the complaint is a mistake of fact. The FIR filed against the driver of the lorry and referred charge sheet were marked before the Tribunal as Ex.C-1. In fact, the Police had filed referred charge sheet stating that the complaint is a mistake of fact. The FIR filed against the driver of the lorry and referred charge sheet were marked before the Tribunal as Ex.C-1. Under such circumstances, 40% negligence fixed on the part of the claimant, cannot be found fault with and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and there is no need for enhancement of the compensation amount and prayed for dismissal of the appeal 9. Keeping the submissions made on either side, we have carefully perused the entire materials available on record. 10. We find that, it is the case of the appellant/claimant that the lorry came behind the two-wheeler which the claimant was riding and made an attempt to over-take the two-wheeler and in that process, the lorry came on the left side and hit on the rear side of the two-wheeler and thus caused the accident. But we find that, initially, the Police had registered the FIR only against the driver of the lorry and later it was closed as mistake of fact. On the side of the Insurance Company, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police was examined as RW-1 and the driver of the lorry was examined as RW-2. Considering the evidence of RWs. 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that, had the driver of the lorry been vigilant, definitely, he would have averted the accident, and therefore, on that score, there is certain percentage of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in fixing 40% of negligence on the part of the claimant and 60% on the part of the driver of the lorry. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings rendered by the Tribunal that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry also. 11. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under various heads as under: S. No. Heads under which the amounts were awarded by the Tribunal Amount 1. Pain and Suffering Rs. 80,000 2. Medical expenses Rs. 4,14,363 3. Transportation expenses Rs. 50,000 4. Nutrition Rs. 30,000 5. Attender charges Rs. 40,000 6. Damages to clothes Rs. 1,000 7. Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000 8. Artificial leg expenses Rs. 1,00,000 9. Pain and Suffering Rs. 80,000 2. Medical expenses Rs. 4,14,363 3. Transportation expenses Rs. 50,000 4. Nutrition Rs. 30,000 5. Attender charges Rs. 40,000 6. Damages to clothes Rs. 1,000 7. Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000 8. Artificial leg expenses Rs. 1,00,000 9. Loss due to permanent disability Rs. 18,14,400 Total Rs. 26,29,763 The Tribunal awarded 60% of Rs. 26,29,763/- as compensation and accordingly awarded Rs. 15,77,858/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant. 12. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the above said heads are on the lower side and prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. Further, the Tribunal, while calculating the compensation amount under the head “loss of income” had taken Rs. 7,500/- as the monthly income of the claimant, which is on the lower side. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the victim/appellant was working as Manager in Suguna Foods (P) Ltd. in Hosur and was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. In such circumstances, Rs. 25,000/- should have been fixed by the Tribunal as the monthly income of the claimant and calculation should have been made on that basis. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company supported the award passed by the Tribunal. 14. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Rs. 7,500/- fixed by the Tribunal as his monthly income, is on the lower side. On the other hand, the Income Tax particulars marked in Ex.P-12 shows that the claimant was receiving salary of Rs. 8,690/- as the monthly income and based on the same, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head “loss of income” may be arrived at. Hence, we are of the opinion that the compensation under the head “loss of income” has to be calculated by taking the actual monthly income at Rs. 8,690/- as the basis. If approximate sum of Rs. 8,500/- is taken into consideration as the monthly income for calculating the loss of income, 40% of the same has to be added towards future prospects and the actual loss of monthly income works out to Rs. 11,900/- (Rs. 8,500 + 40% of 8,500). The annual income works out to Rs. 1,42,800/- (Rs. 11,900 x 12). The correct multiplier that has to be applied in this case is 18. 11,900/- (Rs. 8,500 + 40% of 8,500). The annual income works out to Rs. 1,42,800/- (Rs. 11,900 x 12). The correct multiplier that has to be applied in this case is 18. Further, we find that the Doctor had assessed the disability of the claimant at 83% and the Tribunal had fixed 80% as the disability suffered by the claimant and awarded the amount. But we are of the opinion that since the left leg below the knee was amputated, hereafter, he cannot carry on his avocation as before, namely the Manager in Suguna Foods (P) Limited and cannot continuously sit and perform the functions of the Manager, and therefore, the functional disability can be taken as 100%. Hence, we are awarding Rs. 25,70,400/- (1,42,800 x 18) as the total loss of income. Thus, the sum of Rs. 18,14,400/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head “loss of income” is hereby increased to Rs. 25,70,400/-. 15. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards fixation of artificial leg, which is hereby enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. 16. On account of the accident, the claimant's right leg below the knee was amputated and therefore, this would affect his marital life and hence, he is entitled for compensation for loss of marital life, which is hereby awarded at Rs. 5 lakhs. 17. Except the above modification, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are confirmed. 18. Thus, the amounts awarded by this Court in comparison with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, are tabulated hereunder: S. No. Heads under which the amounts were awarded Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court 1. Pain and Suffering Rs. 80,000 Rs. 80,000 2. Medical expenses Rs. 4,14,363 Rs. 4,14,363 3. Transportation expenses Rs. 50,000 Rs. 50,000 4. Nutrition Rs. 30,000 Rs. 30,000 5. Attender charges Rs. 40,000 Rs. 40,000 6. Damages to clothes Rs. 1,000 Rs. 1,000 7. Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 1,00,000 8. Artificial leg expenses Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 2,00,000 9. Loss due to permanent disability Rs. 18,14,400 Rs. 25,70,400 10. Loss of marital life -- Rs. 5,00,000 Total Rs. 26,29,763 Rs. 39,85,763 Rounded off to Rs. 39,85,800 Out of the above sum of Rs. 39,85,800/- the claimant is entitled to only 60% which comes to Rs. 23,91,480/- (60% of 39,85,800) (40% being deducted towards the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/claimant). 19. 18,14,400 Rs. 25,70,400 10. Loss of marital life -- Rs. 5,00,000 Total Rs. 26,29,763 Rs. 39,85,763 Rounded off to Rs. 39,85,800 Out of the above sum of Rs. 39,85,800/- the claimant is entitled to only 60% which comes to Rs. 23,91,480/- (60% of 39,85,800) (40% being deducted towards the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/claimant). 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 23,91,480/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs ninety one thousand four hundred and eighty only) with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adjusting the amounts if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.