JUDGMENT BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J. - As both Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arising out of same Award passed by the Tribunal can be disposed of by a Common Judgment. 2. The MACMA No.2217 of 2016 is filed by the appellant/petitioner/claimant, whereas MACMA No.493 of 2017 is filed by the appellant/2nd respondent/Insurance Company, under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as "M.V.Act"), challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa in MVOP No.533 of 2015, dtd. 7/4/2016, wherein and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7, 66, 000.00 to the claimant with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into the Court, against his claim a sum of Rs.20, 00, 000.00 3. The appellant in MACMA No.2217 of 2016, and the appellant in MACMA No.493 of 2017 herein after referred to as petitioner and 2nd respondent/Insurance Company as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of brevity and convenience. 4. The petitioner has filed the petition under Sec. 166 of the M.V.Act read with Rule 475 of AP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20, 00, 000.00 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident, that occurred on 18/8/2010 at 11.00 p.m on NH-18 road, near Thimma Reddy Junior College, outskirts of Venkatapuram village of Sirivella mandal, Kurnool District. 5. 5. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was working as a Cleaner for TATA Ace goods auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 04 W 5116, wherein readymade clothes were loaded at Vastra Bharathi complex of Proddatur town in order to deliver the same at Nandyal town, and said vehicle started from Proddatur at 9.00 p.m, when it was proceeding towards Nandyal town on NH-18 road, the driver of auto rickshaw driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against right road side tree, near Thimma Reddy Junior College, outskirts of Venkatapuram village of Sirivella mandal, Kurnool District, due to that the petitioner who sat in the cabin of TATA Ace vehicle sustained crush injury over the left leg, and grievous injuries over abdomen and head, and then immediately the petitioner was shifted to Government hospital, Nandyal and there from to Government General hospital Kurnool, where the left leg of the petitioner was amputated above knee, and he also underwent surgery to his abdomen. The petitioner submits that he was treated as inpatient in the hospital for two months, incurred a sum of Rs.80, 000.00 towards medical and attendant charges. It is also the contention of the petitioner that prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy, aged 22 years working as Cleaner, getting salary of Rs.300.00 per day, besides batta of Rs.50.00 per day, but due to amputation of his left leg, he is not in a position to attend his daily activities. He submits that the 1st respondent is the owner of TATA Ace goods vehicle, which insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, and the policy was in force on the date of accident. He claimed compensation of Rs.20, 00, 000.00 on various heads. 6. The 1st respondent/owner of offending vehicle remained ex parte, and not chosen to contest the case before the Tribunal. 7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter, denying the accident manner in which it was occurred, age and income of the petitioner prior to the accident. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company that driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, and the 1st respondent handed over the vehicle to the person having no driving license, thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company that driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, and the 1st respondent handed over the vehicle to the person having no driving license, thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. They also filed additional counter, stating that accident occurred on 18/8/2010, whereas FIR lodged on 29/8/2010 after lapse of 11 days, due to that it is suspicious that accident might have been created in order to get wrongful gain from their Company. They also claimed that the petitioner was unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle, due to that they are not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. They pray to dismiss the petition. 8. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of auto bearing No.AP 04 W 5116? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered? 3. To what relief? 9. On behalf of petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined. Ex.B1 policy was marked. 10. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company also filed petition under Sec. 170 of the MV Act, and the same was allowed by the Tribunal permitting them to take all defenses available to the owner of the offending vehicle. 11. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7, 66, 000.00 to the petitioner with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, directing all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 12. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company have filed separate appeals. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by him, awarded less compensation without assessing future earnings, though came to conclusion that he sustained 100% disability. He prays to enhance the compensation amount. 13. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by him, awarded less compensation without assessing future earnings, though came to conclusion that he sustained 100% disability. He prays to enhance the compensation amount. 13. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has stated that there is delay of 11 days in lodging the report before the Police, which creates any amount of doubt with regard to manner in which accident occurred, as stated by the petitioner which created by the petitioner for wrongful gain. They pray to dismiss the claim petition. 14. I have heard both sides. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.D.Kodanda Rami Reddy would submit that the Tribunal though came to conclusion that the petitioner sustained 100% disability at the age of 22 years, failed to award any amount of compensation towards future prospects, and awarded less compensation under the head of pain and suffering, which has to be enhanced. He relied on following decisions: 1)Kajal vs. Jagadish Chand and others. 2020 Law Suits (SC) 119. 2)Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Soundarya and others. 2019 ACJ 2340 , High Court of Madras. 3)Jithendran vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another. 2022 (1) ALD 235 (SC) He prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner. 16. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company Mr.V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy would submit that though the medical evidence shows that the petitioner sustained disability of 80%, the Tribunal erroneously assessed loss of future earnings as 100%, which has to be reduced. He would further submit that admittedly there is a delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR, which creates any amount of doubt with regard to manner in which accident occurred, which created by the petitioner in collusion with the Police for wrongful gain. He prays to allow the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. 17. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is:- "Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation to the petitioner in spite of specific defense raised by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, which needs enhancement?" 18. POINT: The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Suresh. Appellant vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another. Respondents in Civil Appeal No.7603/2012, Judgment dtd. POINT: The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Suresh. Appellant vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another. Respondents in Civil Appeal No.7603/2012, Judgment dtd. 19/10/2012 held at para Nos.2 and 10, which reads is under:- Para 2: "Despite many a pronouncement in the field, it still remains a challenging situation warranting sensitive as well as dispassionate exercise how to determine the incalculable sum in calculable terms of money in cases of personal injuries. In such assessment neither sentiments nor emotions have any role. It has been stated in Davies V. Powell Duffryn Associate Collieries Ltd. that it is a matter of Pounds, Shillings and Pence. There cannot be actual Compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quint essentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Sec. 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for brevity 'the Act') stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance....." Para 10:- "It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the tribunal or a court has to be broad based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of "just compensation" should be inhered". 19. In Jagdish, Appellant Vs. Mohan and others, respondents, in Civil Appeal No.2217 of 2018, Judgment dtd. 6/3/2018, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para 8, which reads as under:- "In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. Mohan and others, respondents, in Civil Appeal No.2217 of 2018, Judgment dtd. 6/3/2018, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para 8, which reads as under:- "In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects: (i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; (ii) Loss of income including future income; (iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities; (iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and (v) Loss of expectation of life. In Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (12) Scale 658 . this Court held: "The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." In K.Suresh v New India Assurance Company Ltd, (2012)12SCC274 this Court adverted to the earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra v Randhir Singh, (1990) 3 SCC 723 , and B Kothandapani v Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, (2011) 6 SCC 420 . The Court held that compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for the first head relates to the impairment of a person's capacity while the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. In Govind Yadav v New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 683 . In Govind Yadav v New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 683 . this Court adverted to the earlier decisions in R D Hattangadi v Pest Control (India) (Pvt) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 , Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 , Reshma Kumari v Madam Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422 , Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 , and Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 and held thus: "18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." (Id at page 693) These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi v MD Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal No.7750 of 2012, dtd. 1/11/2012, delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was)." 20. In Parminder Singh, appellant vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, respondents, in Civil Appeal No.5123 of 2019, Judgment dtd. 1/7/2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 5', which reads as under:- "5.5. The High Court has rightly assessed the functional disability of the Appellant as 100%. The Appellant is suffering from hemiplegia due to which the left side of his body is barely functioning. On account of the permanent disability suffered, the Appellant was deprived of getting married and having a normal family life. His capacity to earn a living has been completely shattered for the rest of his life, and he has a become fully dependant person. In Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance CompanyLtd. (2011) 10 SCC 683 , this Court held that: "18. His capacity to earn a living has been completely shattered for the rest of his life, and he has a become fully dependant person. In Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance CompanyLtd. (2011) 10 SCC 683 , this Court held that: "18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar v. AjayKumar (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." (emphasis supplied) In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 this Court held that: "10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the tribunal or a court has to be broad based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of 'just compensation' should be inhered." (emphasis supplied) In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Ors. (2011)1 SCC 343 , this Court held that: "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 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 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. 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 percent, 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 be100% 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 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. 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." (emphasis supplied) 21. In Kajal, Appellant Vs. Jagdish Chand and others, respondents, in Civil Appeal No.735 of 2020, Judgment dtd. 5/2/2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at paras 8 to 18 that: "8. In Phillips v. Western Railway Co.(1874)4 QBD 406, Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus: "You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered." Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases "should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure". 9. In the case of Mediana, (1900) AC 113, Lord Halsbury held: "Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. In truth, I think it would be very arguable to say that a person would be entitled to no damages for such thing. What manly mind cares about pain and suffering that is past? But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given." 10. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West and Son Ltd. v. Shephard, 1963 2 WLR 1359 , are very pertinent: "Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards." In the same case Lord Devlin observed that the proper approach to the problem was to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to "hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing", which should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases. 11. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases: "Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good." 12. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess work and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. 13. In McGregor's Treatise on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: "The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have subdivided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life." 14. In M/s Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi and others, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), this Court held: "2....The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales." 15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd, (1995) 1 SCC 551 , dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held thus: "9. Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." 16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , this Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. "6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life." 17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors., (2012) 12 SCC 274 , this Court held as follows : "2...There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quint essentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Sec. 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance." 18. Applying the aforesaid principles, we now proceed to assess the compensation." 22. In the above decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court after discussing precedent law, and following Judgments with regard to claim of damages explained manner in which compensation has to be awarded to the injured in motor vehicle accident cases. 23. In Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N. Appellant vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another. Respondents in Civil Appeal No.4255 of 2023, Judgment dtd. 7/7/2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court while awarding the compensation in motor vehicle accident injury cases held at para No.11, which reads as under: "11. On account of the injuries sustained claimant has suffered 75% whole body disability. He has clearly deposed that on account of the injuries sustained and consequential disability suffered his marriage prospects have become bleak. Even in the affidavit filed on 30/9/2022 he has deposed that he has remained unmarried and none has come forward to marry him. In other words, the prospects of appellant getting married would remain a dream and for loss of the same he has to be suitably awarded compensation. Hence, we award a sum of Rs.50, 000.00 towards the "loss of marriage prospects." 24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Indra Bai. Appellant vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another. Respondents in Civil Appeal No.4492 of 2023, Judgment dtd. 17/7/2023 held at paras 28 and 29, which reads as under: "28. In light of the aforesaid decisions and the definition of the term "total disablement" as provided by clause (l) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Act, it is the functional disability and not just the physical disability which is the determining factor in assessing whether the claimant (i.e., workman) has incurred total disablement. In light of the aforesaid decisions and the definition of the term "total disablement" as provided by clause (l) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Act, it is the functional disability and not just the physical disability which is the determining factor in assessing whether the claimant (i.e., workman) has incurred total disablement. Thus, if the disablement incurred in an accident incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement, the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under Sec. 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act. The proviso to clause (l) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause. Rather, it adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement. 29. In Mohd. Nasir (supra), which has been relied by the High Court, the workman was a cleaner. He had suffered fracture in the leg. It was held that such injury would not amount to permanent loss of the use of the entire leg. Hence, the disablement was found partial and not total". 25. In Sarnam Sing. Appellant vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and others. Respondents in Civil Appeal No.3900 of 2023, Judgment dtd. 4/7/2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para 9, which reads as under: "9. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability of an injured affects his functional disability, is to be assessed has been considered by this Court, repeatedly. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar And Others, (2012) 2 SCC 267 . In the aforesaid case the injured was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of income on account of disability. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of income on account of disability. This Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the injured was 55 years of age and it may be difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability. The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of earning capacity from 50% to 90%". 26. The first contention of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company in the present appeals is that motor vehicle accident said to be occurred on 18/8/2010, whereas Ex.A1/FIR lodged on 29/8/2010, for which the Tribunal elaborately discussing the evidence available on record by following the ratio laid down by this Court in Kunduru Venkat Reddy vs. Kondapally Upender Reddy and others in 2013 (2) Andhra Weekly Reporter 743 (A.P) paras 11 to 14, which reads as under: "11. Sec. 166 of the 1988 Act vests substantive right to institute claim petition in a person who suffers injuries involving a motor accident. It also vests power in the claims tribunal to treat report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 158 as an application for compensation under the Act. Once such application is filed it has to be adjudicated on merits and cannot be thrown out only on the ground that complaint of accident was not lodged immediately after the occurrence of accident or immediately after discharge from hospital. It is also relevant to notice that Sec. 166 of 1988 Act does not impose any time limit for filing an application for claim. 12. It is also relevant to notice that Sec. 166 of 1988 Act does not impose any time limit for filing an application for claim. 12. Chapter XI of the 1989 Rules deals with procedure to pass an award on claims under the 1988 Act for determination of the claim and compensation. According to sub Rule (7) of Rule 476 of the 1989 Rules, as extracted above, Claims Tribunal can award the claim on the basis of Copy of the First Information Report; and the nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim. Thus, an FIR can be the basis for the claims Tribunal to adjudicate a claim but the provision does not invalidate a claim merely because FIR is lodged after some delay. Rule 476(7) of the 1989 Rules does not seek to curtail a substantive right. Rule 476 comes into operation after claim is instituted and for adjudication of the claim. 13. On investigation police have filed charge sheet alleging rash and negligent driving of motor cycle which resulted in accident. May be appellant was not diligent in lodging complaint immediately on occurrence of accident or immediately on discharge from hospital, but delay of 14 days after discharge from the hospital cannot be said as unreasonable to dislodge a claim at the threshold. In RAVI case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the claim for compensation under the 1988 Act was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that immediately complaint was not lodged. Dealing with the issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under: 17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 18. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons. 20. In the case in hand, the Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court, committed grave error in not appreciating the mental agony through which Suresh was passing, whose son was severely injured. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that MACT as well as the High Court committed error in coming to the conclusion that lodging the FIR belatedly would result in dismissal of the claim petition. 14. In the instant case, the claimant has filed copy of the First Information Report and medical reports as evidence of nature of treatment given to him pursuant to the accident occurred on 14/7/1999. 14. In the instant case, the claimant has filed copy of the First Information Report and medical reports as evidence of nature of treatment given to him pursuant to the accident occurred on 14/7/1999. The medical reports disclose that claimant sustained injuries and was hospitalised for considerable time. The fact that charge sheet is also filed by the police against owner of the vehicle shows that accident did occur. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that First Information Report was not lodged immediately after the discharge from the hospital but there was a delay of 14 days. Delay in filing of complaint with police regarding occurring of accident is not fatal to a claim for compensation under the 1988 Act. Hence, award of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. It is made clear that this court has not expressed opinion on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sequel to the same, the miscellaneous petition filed along with the appeal stands closed. No costs". 27. The Tribunal came to conclusion that the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident, and the delay in lodging the FIR is of no consequence in view of Police investigation, who filed charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle. 28. The next question, which falls for consideration of this Court is whether the compensation quantified by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, which is mandatory as per Sec. 168 of the MV Act. The concept of just compensation has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of decisions. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 968. while deciding the appeal preferred by the claimant in motor vehicle accident claims the Hon'ble Divisional Bench observed at para 113, which reads as under: "113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the Judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If Courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav (supra)] 29. The petitioner being injured in the motor vehicle accident, he is entitled to claim compensation under the following heads: a) Pain and suffering as a consequence of injuries; b) Medical expenses; c) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; d) Transportation, extra-nourishment and attendant charges; e) Loss of amenities to future life; f) Loss of earnings due to Partial, permanent, functional disability if any. 30. The Tribunal awarded the following amount of compensation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident: 31. The Tribunal in the absence of any evidence with regard to income of the petitioner, has rightly fixed the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.3, 000.00 per month, which works out to Rs.36, 000.00 per annum. But the Tribunal failed to add future prospects, though the petitioner who sustained amputation of his left leg at the age of 22 years, and sustained disability of 100%. But the Tribunal failed to add future prospects, though the petitioner who sustained amputation of his left leg at the age of 22 years, and sustained disability of 100%. The Hon'ble Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Oriental Insurance Company Limited case referred (2) supra relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner while awarding the compensation in motor vehicle accident injury case to girl, aged 8 years by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded future prospects to the petitioner therein. 32. In the present case also, the petitioner has sustained amputation to left leg when he was at the age of 22 years. If he would not have met with an accident, certainly he might have continued the same work previously which he is doing, due to that though there is no fixed income or proof of income of the petitioner, he is entitled to claim future prospects @ 40% by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others case, 2017 ACJ 2700 . as per para 61, point (iv). When future prospects @ 40% is added to the income of the petitioner, which comes to Rs.50, 400.00. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and others, Appellants Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, Respondents, AIR 2009 SC 3104 . the proper multiplier for the age group between 21 to 25 is 'M18'. The Tribunal has rightly considered the loss of income due to functional disability sustained by the petitioner as 100%, which is as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decisions. When the income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.3, 000.00 per month, which works out to Rs.36, 000.00 per annum, and then 40% income has to be added towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.50, 400.00, which has to be multiplied with 18' to arrive loss of income due to partial, permanent functional disability, which comes to Rs.9, 07, 200.00. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.60, 000.00 towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.10, 000.00 towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.18, 000.00 towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment, and a sum of Rs.10, 000.00 towards transportation, extranourishment and attendant charges. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.60, 000.00 towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.10, 000.00 towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.18, 000.00 towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment, and a sum of Rs.10, 000.00 towards transportation, extranourishment and attendant charges. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20, 000.00 only towards amenities to future life, which includes loss of marriage prospects of the petitioner due to amputation of his left leg. The petitioner is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for loss of amenities and marriage prospects. The petitioner is entitled to claim the following amounts of compensation: In total, the petitioner is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.11, 05, 200.00 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. 33. In the result, MACMA No.493 of 2017 filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is dismissed. MACMA No.2217 of 2016 filed by the petitioner/claimant is allowed in part enhancing the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner from Rs.7, 66, 000.00 to Rs.11, 05, 200.00 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit balance of compensation amount with interest and proportionate costs within a period of Sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of Orders of this Court in the present appeals. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation with accrued interest. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay if any granted, shall stand vacated.