JUDGMENT : J.J. MUNIR, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of First Appeal From Order No. 357 of 2001 and Cross Objection No. 70 of 2022. 2. The aforesaid appeal and the cross objection arise out of the impugned judgment and award dated 20.02.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/XIII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad rendered in MACP No. 699 of 1998. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these: On 30.09.1998 at about quarter past 3 o’clock in the afternoon, the claimant-respondent (for short ‘the claimant’) was riding his scooter bearing Registration No. UP-14J-1607 and proceeding from Village Chauda to Sector 25, NOIDA, then falling in District Ghaziabad. As the claimant reached near Sectors 21, 25, Truck bearing Registration No. DIG/2615, driven by its driver, rashly, negligently and at a high speed, approached from the side of Sector 31 and hit the claimant’s scooter. In consequence of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries rendering him permanently disabled. At the time the accident happened, the claimant was aged 22 years. He was on the brink of death. The claimant says that he was a trained technician and employed with Supertonics India Ltd., on the post of a Foreman. He was drawing a handsome salary. It is the claimant’s case that on account of injuries sustained and the resultant permanent disability, he suffered mental agony and physical pain. He lost his job. Accordingly, in the claim petition before the Tribunal, he asked for a compensation in the sum of Rs. 50 lacs. 4. Gora Lal, who was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 in the claim petition is the owner of the offending vehicle. He put in a written statement before the Tribunal denying the claim. The stand taken was that on the fateful day, his driver was driving the offending vehicle with caution and at a slow speed. All of a sudden, the ill-fated scooter ridden by the claimant appeared on the scene. It was being driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed. The claimant applied brakes to save himself from being hit by a car that was moving ahead of the Truck. This resulted in the accident. It is also his plea that at the time of the accident, the claimant did not hold a valid driving license. 5. It was being driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed. The claimant applied brakes to save himself from being hit by a car that was moving ahead of the Truck. This resulted in the accident. It is also his plea that at the time of the accident, the claimant did not hold a valid driving license. 5. A separate written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company India Ltd. who were opposite party No. 2 to the claim petition. The appellant shall hereinafter referred to as, the Insurers. 6. It was pleaded on behalf of the Insurers that the compensation claimed is exaggerated. The accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. The claim petition is bad for non-joinder. It was also the Insurers’ case that at the time of the accident, the claimant did not hold a valid and effective driving license. There is also a plea that the claimant did not have a good income. 7. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed, (translated into English from Hindi): (1) Whether on 30.09.1998, at about 03 O’ Clock near electric station crossing of Sector 21, 25, Noida, Police Station Dadri, District Ghaziabad, Truck No. DIG/2615, driven by its driver, rashly and at a high speed, hit the scooter bearing Registration No. UP-14J-1607, in consequence whereof the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident? (2) Whether the accident occurred due to the claimant’s negligence? (3) Whether the scooter rider held a valid driving license at the time of the accident? If yes, its effect? (4) Whether at the time of the accident, the truck driver held a valid driving license? (5) To what compensation is the claimant entitled and from which opposite party? 8. In support of his case, the claimant filed documents through a list, paper No. 19-Ga, carrying medical bills and examined PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as his witnesses. On behalf of the Insurers, DW-1 has been examined. 9. Issues Nos. 1 and 2, that is to say, the issues about negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and that relating to contributory negligence were both decided together by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held on both issues in favour of the claimant saying that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver wherein there was no contribution by the claimant. 10. The Tribunal held on both issues in favour of the claimant saying that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver wherein there was no contribution by the claimant. 10. Learned Counsel for the Insurers has assailed the findings of the Tribunal, saying that the Tribunal has ill appreciated the evidence regarding negligence and contributory negligence, while deciding Issues Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the testimony of PW-1 and the site plan which vitiates its findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2. There is also criticism of the remarks by the Tribunal where it is said that there is contradiction between the testimony of PW-1 and the site plan. A further criticism by the learned Counsel for the Insurers about the findings on these two related issues is that there is nothing in the testimony of the driver to show that there was no green light on the crossing. Likewise, though there is no mention about the absence of a green light on the crossing in the claimant’s testimony, the presumption drawn by the Tribunal that there was no green light on the crossing is said to be based no evidence. 11. Learned Counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, has supported the Tribunal’s findings and submitted that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence of the claimant, PW-1, going into details of the incident and reconstructing the scene of accident to find in the claimant’s favour. It emphasized that PW-1 was cross-examined and his testimony having passed the grill of cross-examination, inference drawn from it by the Tribunal is unimpeachable. It is also emphasized that the testimony of PW-1 has also been thoroughly scrutinized by the Tribunal. DW-1 is the truck driver, who has spoken about a Maruti Car moving ahead of his truck, which crossed the green light on the stadium crossing. He has blamed the rider of the scooter for negligent driving, but the Tribunal has minutely examined his testimony comparing it to the site plan and holding it unreliable. 12. DW-1 is the truck driver, who has spoken about a Maruti Car moving ahead of his truck, which crossed the green light on the stadium crossing. He has blamed the rider of the scooter for negligent driving, but the Tribunal has minutely examined his testimony comparing it to the site plan and holding it unreliable. 12. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties on this issue and perusing the records, this Court finds that the rider of the scooter and the driver of the offending vehicle are expected to speak in the witness box words that may not be absolutely truthful; but, these witnesses have been duly cross-examined. The Tribunal has rightly remarked that the testimony of the driver saying that the scooter applied brakes, because he wanted to avoid hitting the car, does not appear to be correct because the car had already crossed the green light on the crossing. There was, thus, no occasion for the scooter driver proceeding at right angles to avoid hitting the car. The Tribunal has also thoroughly examined the evidence of the claimant to hold that his testimony shows that he was proceeding from Village Chauda in the north-south direction, whereas the truck was approaching the crossing from the east. The Tribunal has indeed inferred rightly from the testimony that the claimant had seen the truck and manoeuvred his two wheeler to the left to avoid a collision, but the truck driver hit him on the left side of the scooter. The Tribunal has rightly remarked that the driver of the truck hitting the claimant on the left side while proceeding from the east towards the crossing shows that it was the truck driver who was negligent. A perusal of the site plan also shows that though the scooter had entered the crossing, but it had turned to its right and was hit on the left hand side by the truck proceeding from the east of the crossing. 13. Looking into the testimony of PW-1 and DW-1, both of which have been subjected to cross-examination and the site plan, this Court is of opinion that the findings of the Tribunal about the truck driver’s exclusive negligence is well founded. There is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Even otherwise, the driver of a heavy vehicle ought to exercise more caution when entering a crossing. There is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Even otherwise, the driver of a heavy vehicle ought to exercise more caution when entering a crossing. The findings of the Tribunal, therefore, on Issues Nos. 1 and 2 deserves to be affirmed. 14. Issues Nos. 3 and 4, which are issues raised by the opposite parties, have been decided in favour of the claimants with issue No. 3 not being pressed at all, and on issue No. 4 there being a finding that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle has been produced, which has been acknowledged by the Insurers. Thus, there is no cavil about the said findings in the appeal. 15. On Issue No. 5, the Tribunal has awarded a substantive compensation of Rs. 3,67,200/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been added for the medical expenses incurred, that are supported by Bills and vouchers. In addition, a sum of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded for the purposes of securing the artificial limb. It has been noted that a cost of Rs. 11,000/- is required for replacement of the artificial limb every two years. Rs. 50,000/- have been awarded towards mental and physical pain, physical disability, loss of job etc. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded towards future medical expenses, loss of amenities and the mental pain, yet to come. 16. In this manner, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,52,200/- The claimant in his cross-examination says that the compensation awarded is far below his entitlement. One of the objections is that interest has been awarded only upon a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of the entire compensation payable, which cannot be countenanced. The next objection by the claimant is that the sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of future medical expenses is too low, considering the injuries and the future medical treatment required. The claimant ought to be awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, looking to the injuries that he sustained. It is also argued that the sum of Rs. 35,000/- granted towards compensation for the future regular change of the artificial limb is also too low, which would be a regular feature during the claimant’s life. The claimant ought to be awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, looking to the injuries that he sustained. It is also argued that the sum of Rs. 35,000/- granted towards compensation for the future regular change of the artificial limb is also too low, which would be a regular feature during the claimant’s life. It is next submitted that the claimant has been declared 55% handicapped in the accident, on account of which he is unable to move anywhere and rendered incapable of doing any work to earn his livelihood. It is the claimant’s submission that looking to the nature of his job, which was that of a technician a 55% physical handicap or medical disability, would translate into a 100% functional disability. 17. The Tribunal has accepted evidence about which there is not much cavil by the Insurers as well, that the claimant earned a monthly sum of Rs. 3,250/- by way of salary. He was a young man of 22 years. The claimant was a technician undertaking the work of electric motor winding. About this, the Tribunal has remarked that this is a kind of job that he can do even while being stationary. He need not move about to carry on his job. The Tribunal has then opined that notwithstanding the fact that the job that the claimant does can still be undertaken by him while being stationary, the fact that he has suffered a permanent disability would have a telling effect on his behaviour and mental outlook. It cannot be said whether he would be able to carry on with his work and earn his livelihood. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that he has been removed from his job on account of the permanent disability that he has sustained on account of the accident. 18. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has translated the 55% permanent disability into a numerical equivalent of functional disability. The claimant’s salary was a sum of Rs. 3,250/- at the time when he suffered the accident. His loss of monthly income caused by the functional disability of 55%, has been determined at a sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month. The annual loss of income has been worked out to a sum of Rs. 21,600/-. The claimant’s salary was a sum of Rs. 3,250/- at the time when he suffered the accident. His loss of monthly income caused by the functional disability of 55%, has been determined at a sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month. The annual loss of income has been worked out to a sum of Rs. 21,600/-. Since the claimant was a young man of 22 years, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘17’ to determine the total loss sustained by him about his future income at a figure of Rs. 3,67,200/-. The other sums of money that have been added to it are those on account of medical expenses, future medical expenses, mental pain and agony faced and that to be suffered in future, besides compensation and permanent requirement of a biennial change of his artificial limb, as already noticed, hereinabove. 19. Learned Counsel for the Insurers has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal ought not to be enhanced contrary to what the learned Counsel for the claimant has urged in support of his case for enhancement. 20. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties on the issue of enhancement, this Court finds that there is on record a medical certificate dated 15.04.1999, issued by the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad, signed by a team of three doctors which includes the Chief Medical Officer, besides an Orthopaedic Surgeon and an Eye Specialist. The said certificate indicates that the claimant had sustained amputation of his left leg and sustained a permanent disability of 55%. There is an attested photograph of the claimant, pasted on the certificate. It shows that the claimant’s left leg has been amputated below the knee and he is almost without a functional left lower limb. No doubt, the claimant has sustained a serious and permanent disability at a very young age. The claimant is a technician, which involves physical exertion to undertake the job. Notwithstanding the fact that the work of electric motor winding can be done in a stationary position, this Court is of opinion that the Tribunal is right in holding that the 55% permanent medical disability would translate into an equivalent functional disability. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly estimated the minimum loss of the claimant’s income at the time, in the sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly estimated the minimum loss of the claimant’s income at the time, in the sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month. In determining the functional disability various factors have to be taken into consideration, which include the nature of the disability sustained in the accident, such as the loss of a limb etc. and the nature of the claimant’s work before the accident, while inferring the functional disability from what is medically certified as the permanent disability. 21. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 , where it has been held: 12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary. (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement. (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 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 a result of the permanent disability (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 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 a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a 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 a 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 a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be 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 a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.” 22. In the opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity in calculating the annual loss of income and determining it at a figure of Rs. 21,600/-. 23. In the opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity in calculating the annual loss of income and determining it at a figure of Rs. 21,600/-. 23. However, so far as the multiplier of ‘17’ is concerned, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred there. Going by the table to adopt the proper multiplier set out in Paragraph No. 40 of the judgment in Smt. Sarla Devi and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the claimant would fall in the age group of 21 to 25 years, for which the appropriate multiplier prescribed is ‘18’ not ‘17’. The substantive loss of future income sustained by the claimant was, therefore, Rs. 21,600/-. 24. So far as the medical expenses are concerned, that have already been incurred, there is on record dependable documentary evidence about it. The opinion of the Tribunal in determining it at a figure of Rs. 1,50,000/- is unassailable. 25. It has not been doubted or disputed before this Court that the claimant would indeed require replacement of his artificial limb every two years. The cost of the replacement at the time when the Tribunal heard the matter was Rs. 11,000/-. That was a long time ago and the rising price index has to be born in mind while estimating the future expense on the replacement of this facility. In the Court’s opinion, the compensation towards expenses for future and current replacement of the artificial limb has to be enhanced from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 2 lacs. The sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded for the mental and physical pain sustained on account of the accident and the loss of his job by the claimant, estimated by the Tribunal, is also unexceptionable. However, the compensation awarded for the loss of future amenities and mental pain yet to come, would not be admissible in view of the fact that the claimant now seeks some addition to the substantive loss of income under the head of future prospects. 26. In Raj Kumar (supra), it has been held: “15. However, the compensation awarded for the loss of future amenities and mental pain yet to come, would not be admissible in view of the fact that the claimant now seeks some addition to the substantive loss of income under the head of future prospects. 26. In Raj Kumar (supra), it has been held: “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 a result, only a 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 a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.” 27. This Court is, therefore, of opinion that for the loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life or pain in the future, a token sum of Rs. 2,000/- ought to be awarded instead of Rs. 50,000/-. 28. Now, considering the award of future prospects, the claimant who was a young man of 22 years at the time of the accident, he is certainly entitled to future prospects worked out on the lost income. The issue about loss of future prospects in the case of an employee suffering a permanent disability on account of an accident, fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Jagdish vs. Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 . In that case, the claimant was a carpenter, aged 24 years when the accident happened. In the background of those facts, the Supreme Court relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , observed thus: “13. In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs. 2400/- towards loss of future prospects. 14. In making the computation in the present case, the court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a complete Civil Appeal No. 7750 of 2012, decided on 1 November 2012 deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing - at least in the facts of this case - can restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity.” 29. Though, the Supreme Court in Jagdish (supra) approved the addition of 40% of the established income towards future prospects in case of a self employed man, in the State of Uttar Pradesh future prospects would be governed by Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (for short ‘the 1998 Rules’). 30. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Urmila Shukla and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 822. In Urmila Shukla (supra), it was held: “9. It is to be noted that the validity of the Rules was not, in any way, questioned in the instant matter and thus the only question that we are called upon to consider is whether in its application, Sub-Rule 3(iii) of Rule 220A of the Rules must be given restricted scope or it must be allowed to operate fully. 10. It is to be noted that the validity of the Rules was not, in any way, questioned in the instant matter and thus the only question that we are called upon to consider is whether in its application, Sub-Rule 3(iii) of Rule 220A of the Rules must be given restricted scope or it must be allowed to operate fully. 10. The discussion on the point in Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of arriving at “just compensation” in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. If an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the validity of the Rules was not put under any challenge. The prescription of 15% in cases where the deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60 years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken as maxima. In the absence of any governing principle available in the statutory regime, it was only in the form of an indication. If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid. 12. We, therefore, reject the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant and affirm the view taken by the Tribunal as well as the High Court and dismiss this appeal without any order as to costs.” 31. Going by Rule 220-A(3) of the 1998 Rules and the age of the claimant, which is below forty years, for the future prospects there has to be an addition to the lost income of the claimant to the extent of 50%. 32. The award made by the Tribunal deserves to be revised and determined as follows: (i) Loss of Monthly Income (to the claimant) Rs. 1,800 (ii) Lost Monthly Income + Future Prospects (Lost Monthly Income x 50%) = 1800 + 900 Rs. 2,700 (iii) Lost Annual Income (to the claimant) = 2700 x 12 Rs. 32,400 (iv) Total Income Lost = Lost Annual Income x Applied Multiplier = 32400 x 18 Rs. 5,83,000 (v) Medical Expenses Rs. 1,50,000 (vi) Compensation towards expenses for future and current replacement of the artificial limb Rs. 2,00,000 (vii) Sum awarded towards mental and physical pain Rs. 2,700 (iii) Lost Annual Income (to the claimant) = 2700 x 12 Rs. 32,400 (iv) Total Income Lost = Lost Annual Income x Applied Multiplier = 32400 x 18 Rs. 5,83,000 (v) Medical Expenses Rs. 1,50,000 (vi) Compensation towards expenses for future and current replacement of the artificial limb Rs. 2,00,000 (vii) Sum awarded towards mental and physical pain Rs. 50,000 (viii) Loss of amenities or loss expectations of life or pain in the future Rs. 2,000 The total compensation would therefore, work out to a figure Rs. 9,85,000 33. The impugned award is modified and it is ordered that the Insurance Company shall pay in compensation to the claimants a sum of Rs. 9,85,000/-. The aforesaid sum of money shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition, until realization. 34. The sum of money already deposited with the Tribunal pursuant to the impugned award, or the interim order passed by this Court, shall be adjusted against the award. The other directions of the Tribunal shall remain intact. 35. In the result, FAFO No. 357 of 2001 is dismissed and Cross Objection No. 70 of 2022 stands partly allowed. Costs easy.