JUDGMENT : This is an appeal of the claimant against the award and judgment passed by the MACT, Gokak in MVC No.2500/2016 dated 12.12.2017 seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. We refer the parties as per their ranks before the trial Court. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Trial Court was that, on 01.06.2016, at about p.m. he was returning from Gokak to his village Chikkanandi on Gokak-Yaragatti road on his motorcycle bearing No.KA47/E1361, he met with accident at Savalyal Pol due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing No.KA49/S6995 by its rider, due to which petitioner had sustained fracture of left tibia and fibula. He was admitted to hospital of Dr.M.G.Umbrani at Gokak. He underwent surgery and his left leg below the knee joint was amputated. Petitioner had further contended that at the time of accident, he was aged 45 years; he was an agriculturist and also doing agricultural coolie work, he was earning Rs.2,00,000/-per annum from agriculture and Rs.12,000/- per month by working as an agricultural coolie. He has further stated that he has spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses and he requires Rs.5,00,000/-for his future medical expenses. Due to amputation to left leg, he became permanently disabled and unable to do any work. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the motorcycle bearing No.KA49/S6995. In his written statement, he has admitted the claim of the petitioner and he has further stated that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and policy of the insurance was in force as on the date of accident and therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. 5. Respondent No.2 in it’s written statement denied all the petition averments and has stated that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving license by the rider of the motorcycle and prayed for dismissal. 6. From the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. 5. Respondent No.2 in it’s written statement denied all the petition averments and has stated that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving license by the rider of the motorcycle and prayed for dismissal. 6. From the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident that took place on 01.06.2016 at about p.m. on Gokak-Yaragatti road near Savalyal Pol at Dundanatti, due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing No.KA49/S6995 by its rider who dashed to the petitioners motorcycle bearing No.KA47/E1361 when petitioner was riding the motor cycle as averred in the petition? 2. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is quantum and from whom? 4. What order or award? 7. The petitioner has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.to P22. Respondent No.2 has examined RW1 and got marked Ex.R1 to R3. 8. Learned trial judge appreciating pleadings and evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.6,84,000/-by the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2017. 9. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. The following point emerges for our determination: 1. Whether petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation awarded by the trial Court? 11. Learned advocate for appellant has contended that Trial Court has taken the income of petitioner as Rs.7,000/-per month which is on much lower side. The trial Court has not properly appreciated percentage of permanent disability of petitioner. Petitioner’s left leg below the knee joint was amputated. He was an agriculturist. Therefore, he has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 100%. However, the trial court wrongly considered it as 50%. The amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court on other heads are also very meager and hence, prayed for enhancement. 12. Learned advocate for respondent supported the findings of the trial Court. 13. The learned Trial Judge after appreciating the pleading and evidence on record has rightly held that the accident was taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motorcycle bearing No.KA49/S6995 by its rider. The said finding has not been challenged by the respondent No.2. Therefore, there is no need of reconsideration of the same. 14. 13. The learned Trial Judge after appreciating the pleading and evidence on record has rightly held that the accident was taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motorcycle bearing No.KA49/S6995 by its rider. The said finding has not been challenged by the respondent No.2. Therefore, there is no need of reconsideration of the same. 14. PW.1 in his evidence has stated about the amputation of left leg and his inability to do any work and PW.2 has treated the petitioner and has deposed that “petitioner is suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 100% to the left lower limb; once foot is lost everything of lower limb is lost. Due to loss of left lower limb, balance coordination and energy of group of muscles in other limbs will be badly affected. Hence, petitioner has been suffering from permanent disability of 100% to the whole body. The trial Judge after appreciating the evidence of PWs.and 2, held that the disability of petitioner to his whole body is 50%. 15. The learned advocate for appellant contends that in case of amputation of lower limb, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in such cases, permanent disability is 90% to 100%. In the case of Lalan D. Lal and another Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.2855/2020 disposed of on 17.09.2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the claimant was suffering from 100% permanent disability. The Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.102628/2015 C/W MFA No.103217/2015 dated 21.01.2019, held that amputation of one of the legs leads to disability to an extent of 90% and on that basis compensation was awarded. 16. Considering the said judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disability of the petitioner in the present case may be considered as 90 to 95%, to the whole body. 17. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.102628/2015 connected with other appeal relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Mohan Soni Vs.Ram Avatar Tomar and others reported in (2012) SCC 267 and also in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) SCC 343, held that disability in the case of amputation of leg, according to the fact of that case was 90% of the whole body. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) SCC 343, held that disability in the case of amputation of leg, according to the fact of that case was 90% of the whole body. How to assess the loss of permanent disability has been discussed in the said judgment, on the basis of observation made in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another. We quote; “13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 14. For example, if the left hand of claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was driver or carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as result, only token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may. 16. The Tribunal should not be silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as neutral umpire as in civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to `hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the `just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the `just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with Medical Dictionary and Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. 17. If Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so, the percentage. 18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for crossexamination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute Medical Board (from panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. 18. In this case petitioner was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. His left leg was amputated below the knee. He was said to be doing work as agricultural coolie. 18. In this case petitioner was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. His left leg was amputated below the knee. He was said to be doing work as agricultural coolie. According to the evidence of PW.2, petitioner has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 100% to the whole body. Agriculture and agricultural coolie work is strenuous work. When he has lost one of his legs, it cannot be possible for him to do the said work. Therefore, he has lost 100% income from the agriculture or as agricultural coolie work. The trial Court observed in the judgment that petitioner has not produced any document to show that he had agricultural lands. Hence, it can be considered as he was an agriculture coolie. Therefore, it is clear that after the accident, it was rather impossible for him to do the work as agricultural coolie. Now, the second question is whether he can do any other work wherein much strain is not required or work in sitting position. The answer is in the affirmative. He can do the work which is not strenuous and much movements are not required. Considering the same, we notionally assess the permanent disability affect earning capacity of the petitioner is to an extent of 75% to the whole body. 19. It is the contention of the appellant that income of petitioner from agriculture was Rs.2,00,000/-per annum and working as coolie at the rate of Rs.12,000/-per month. However, he has not produced any concrete evidence to accept the said income. Learned trial Judge on the basis of approximation has held that notional income of petitioner was Rs.7,000/-per month. It appears to be on lower side. Accident had taken place during the year 2016. Therefore, notional income of petitioner is taken as Rs.8750/-which was normally taken as notional income of victim of an accident, for settlement of cases in Lok Adalath. The Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the petitioner. Petitioner was aged 45 years at the time of accident. In the case of Lalan D. Lal and Another referred above, it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that future prospects has to be considered even though claimant had no fixed income. 20. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Petitioner was aged 45 years at the time of accident. In the case of Lalan D. Lal and Another referred above, it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that future prospects has to be considered even though claimant had no fixed income. 20. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , it is held that if victim of accident is between the age group of 4050 years, 25% of his income should be added as future prospects. In the present case, age of petitioner was 45 years. Therefore, 25% of income has to be added towards future prospects which amounts to Rs.2188/-. The Total earning of the petitioner is Rs.10,938/-per month. 21. In the above paras, it is held that petitioner is suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 75% to the whole body. Therefore, 75% of the above said income is Rs.8,21300. As per the case of Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 , the suitable multiplier applicable between the age group of 4150 years is 14, which is applicable to the present case. Therefore, the total compensation to be awarded under the head loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is Rs.8203 X12X14=Rs.13,78,104/-. 22. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-towards pain and suffering. Looking to treatment, facts and circumstances as discussed above, the said amount is on the lower side. Hence, Rs.1,00,000/-is awarded under the head pain and suffering. 23. Tribunal has awarded Rs.79,073 towards medical expenses on the basis of receipts produced by the petitioner. Learned advocate for petitioner contends that claimant had spent more than Rs.1,00,000/-towards medical expenses, which was not considered by the Tribunal. The said contention is not tenable and fully acceptable. Appellant has not produced documents before Tribunal in this regard. It is true that some time the Pharmacists may not give receipts or the person who went to buy medicine might not have taken receipts or might not be preserved due to ignorance. Considering the treatment taken by petitioner, it appears that besides the receipts produced before the Court, petitioner might have spent some more amount towards medical expenses, miscellaneous expenses etc. which needs to be compensated. Accordingly, Rs.85,000/-is awarded towards medical expenses and incidental expenses. 24. Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,000/-towards conveyance, attendants and other incidental charges. Considering the treatment taken by petitioner, it appears that besides the receipts produced before the Court, petitioner might have spent some more amount towards medical expenses, miscellaneous expenses etc. which needs to be compensated. Accordingly, Rs.85,000/-is awarded towards medical expenses and incidental expenses. 24. Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,000/-towards conveyance, attendants and other incidental charges. The amount of compensation awarded under the said head is on lower side. Petitioner was admitted as inpatient for about 16 days, his left leg was amputated. Therefore, even after discharged from hospital, one might have attended him at home. He might be under special diet. To take follow up treatment, he might have used ambulance or taxi to go to the hospital and has spent some amount. Considering these facts, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards Nutritious food, attendants and other incidental charges. 25. Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of income during the laid up period taking income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/-p.m. This Court assessed the income of petitioner as Rs.11,000/-(Rs.10,93800) p.m. Hence, Rs.33,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period. 26. Learned advocate for appellant has contended that Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-towards loss of amenities or discomfort which is on lower side. In the case of Lalan D. Lal and another and Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar Another referred supra, it is held that when compensation is awarded by treating loss of future earning capacity as 100% or even anything more than 50%, the need to award compensation separately under the head loss of amenities or loss of expectations of life may disappear. As result only token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under those heads. 27. In this case also permanent disability of the petitioner is taken as 70% to the whole body and compensation has been awarded on that basis. Keeping the law laid down in the above judgments and also considering the facts of this case, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head loss of amenities. Petitioner is entitled for the following amount of compensation under different heads. Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Keeping the law laid down in the above judgments and also considering the facts of this case, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head loss of amenities. Petitioner is entitled for the following amount of compensation under different heads. Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 1,00,00000 2 Medical expenses and incidental charges 85,000-00 3 Attendants charges and food and nourishment and conveyance charges 25,000-00 4 Loss of income during laid up period 33,000-00 5 Loss of future income due to permanent disability 13,78,104-00 6 Loss of amenities 50,000-00 Total 16,71,104-00 Rounded off to 16,71,000-00 Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,71,00000 as against Rs.6,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.9,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on enhanced compensation from the date of petition till payment of entire amount. Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the said amount. 2 3 28. For the above discussions, we pass the following: ORDER Appeal is partly allowed with costs. Impugned judgment is modified. Appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,71,000/-as against Rs.6,84,000/-awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till realization of entire amount. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount within period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.