JUDGMENT: 1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1265 of 2007 filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of the compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.3747 of 2008 filed by the R.T.C., are directed against the very same judgment and decree, dated 02.03.2007, passed in O.P.No.871 of 2004 on the file of the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: 4. The claimant filed a petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 09.12.2003. It is stated that on the said date, the claimant and his friends Shankerlal, S.Prem Kumar, went to Abids to meet their friend and while they were returning from Abids to Karwan on Hero Honda bearing No.AP 13 E 7368, and were passing Vijayanagar Colony near A1 Saba Hotel at about 6.30 P.M., the claimant has noticed R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 2732 standing at the bus stop and the claimant on his way riding motorbike and all of a sudden, the driver of the bus moved the bus in the same direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of which, the claimant fell down on the road and the right side front wheel of the bus ran over on the left hand shoulder of the claimant. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Mahaveer Hospital and from there to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, where an operation was conducted and his left hand was amputated upto the shoulder. The claimant spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the R.T.C. bus and the respondents, who are the owner and custodian of the R.T.C. bus, the claim petition came to be filed making both of them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 5. Both the respondents filed written statement denying the allegations and contended that the claimant/injured has to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident. 5. Both the respondents filed written statement denying the allegations and contended that the claimant/injured has to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident. It is also stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant, as such, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. It is further stated that the compensation claimed is excessive, speculative and unreasonable and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,70,800/- under various heads, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Challenging the same, the present Appeals came to be filed by the claimant and the R.T.C. 8. Heard both sides and perused the record. 9. Learned Counsel for the claimant would submit that though the claimant is aged about 22 years, and he was prosecuting degree 3rd year, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/-. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (2010) 10 SCC 254 the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further submitted that since the claimant was aged about 22 years, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier ‘18’ instead of ‘17’. It is also submitted that in view of the settled position of law, the claimant is also entitled an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and loss of marriage prospects. 10. The only contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the R.T.C. is that the disability certificate produced by the claimant was not issued by the Medical Board and as such the Tribunal ought not to have considered the disability sustained by claimant. 11. 10. The only contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the R.T.C. is that the disability certificate produced by the claimant was not issued by the Medical Board and as such the Tribunal ought not to have considered the disability sustained by claimant. 11. In Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra) the Apex Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After noticing the factual matrix of the case, the Court observed as under:- "We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered." 12. In the instant case also the claimant was a student studying degree final year and had sustained 90% disability, which was supported by the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A12-disability certificate issued by NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the R.T.C. that the Tribunal ought not to have taken into consideration Ex.A12-disability certificate as the same was not issued by the Medical Board, has no force since the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, is a Government Hospital and it is competent to issue Ex.A12. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 the Apex Court held that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably estimated minimum at Rs.3,000/- per month for any non-earning member. In the instant case, the claimant, who was a victim of accident, was a student of degree final year and he sustained 90% permanent disability. Therefore, in order to calculate the loss of future earnings of the claimant, this Court is inclined to take the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month as taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, in order to calculate the loss of future earnings of the claimant, this Court is inclined to take the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month as taken by the Tribunal. A perusal of the material available on record would show that the claimant was aged about 22 years and the appropriate multiplier is ‘18’ in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , but the Tribunal has applied the multiplier as ‘17’. Even taking the disability at 90% as assessed by the Tribunal, applying multiplier ‘18’ the loss of future earnings on account of disability would be Rs.48,000/- x 90/100 x 18 = Rs.7,77,600/-. Further, after considering all the aspects the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life; Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment and Rs.2,00,000/- towards future expenses for purchase of artificial limb, which needs no interference. Apart from that since the claimant was aged about 22 years as on the date of accident and has suffered amputation of left hand upto the shoulder, his marriage prospects are also grim. But, the Tribunal has neither appreciated this aspect nor awarded any compensation under this head. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of injuries sustained and also amputation, this Court inclined to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the claimant is entitled to the following amounts under various heads. Sl. No. Name of the Head Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. Ps. Awarded by this Court Rs. Ps. 1. Pain and suffering 1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00 2. Loss of future earnings 5,50,800.00 7,77,600.00 3. Loss of amenities in life 1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00 4. Medical expenses 10,000.00 10,000.00 5. Transportation and extra nourishment 10,000.00 10,000.00 6. Fixation of artificial limb and future expenses for said artificial limb 2,00,000.00 2,00,000.00 7. Loss of marriage prospects 50,000.00 Total: 9,70,800.00 12,47,600.00 13. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1265 of 2007 filed by the claimant is hereby allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,70,800.00 to Rs.12,47,600.00 and M.A.C.M.A.No.3747 of 2008 filed by the R.T.C. is dismissed. Fixation of artificial limb and future expenses for said artificial limb 2,00,000.00 2,00,000.00 7. Loss of marriage prospects 50,000.00 Total: 9,70,800.00 12,47,600.00 13. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1265 of 2007 filed by the claimant is hereby allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,70,800.00 to Rs.12,47,600.00 and M.A.C.M.A.No.3747 of 2008 filed by the R.T.C. is dismissed. The enhanced amount will carry an interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award passed by the Tribunal i.e., from 02.03.2007 till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.