JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant/Insurance Company as well as the claimant/respondent No. 1 (appellant in Cross Appeal No. 7/2016) have assailed the award dated 24.02.2016, by virtue of which the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tribunal’) has awarded a sum of Rs. 21,94,769/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, except under the head “loss of future income” in favour of respondent No. 1/claimant on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident on 08.02.2011. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company has impugned the award on the ground that enhancement of income by 50% is bad in law and the compensation on account of plastic surgery, three tyres scooter, expenditure of attendants could not have been awarded by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award. The respondent No. 1-appellant in Cross-appeal has impugned the award on the ground that learned Tribunal has not rightly assessed the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs. 10,000/- per month, which in fact was more than Rs. 10,000/- per month and further that the attendant expenses were also required to be paid for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs, as the respondent No.1/claimant remained under treatment for two years and five months. The respondent No. 1 has also prayed for enhancement of compensation on account of “loss of pain and sufferings” and “loss of amenities of life”. 3. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has enhanced the income of the respondent no. 1 by 50%, which is not permissible under law and further without there being any claim for plastic surgery & three tyres scooter, a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac for plastic surgery and a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for three tyres scooter has been awarded to the respondent No. 1, which is not permissible under law. Mr. Baldev Singh further argued that compensation awarded in favour of the respondent No. 1 is on the higher side and the same is required to be slashed down. 4. On the other side, Mr. 90,000/- for three tyres scooter has been awarded to the respondent No. 1, which is not permissible under law. Mr. Baldev Singh further argued that compensation awarded in favour of the respondent No. 1 is on the higher side and the same is required to be slashed down. 4. On the other side, Mr. P. S. Parmar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that because of the accident, the whole life of the respondent No. 1 has been ruined and after passing of the award, the below knee amputation was done on the left lower limb and the respondent No.1 has placed on record bills amounting to Rs. 35,003/- through the medium of CM No. 1849/2020. He drew attention of this Court towards the bills placed on record after filing of the appeal before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident on 08.02.2011. The appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were put to notice. The appellant and respondent No. 3 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objections. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether an accident occurred on 08.02.2011 at Mishriwala by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK02AG/9390 being driven by its driver respondent No. 1, in which petitioner received grievous injuries? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and whether there was violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance? If so, to what effect OPR-3 4. Relief? 7. The respondent No.1 besides examining himself also examined witnesses, namely, Ram Saroop, Madan Lal, Pritam Kumar, Radhay Sham and Dr. Rakesh Sharma, whereas the appellant/Insurance Company examined one witness, Ramesh Singh, Junior Assistant of ARTO, Poonch. After considering the evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 21,94,769/- in favour of the respondent No. 1 under the following heads : 1. Loss of future income: Rs. 12,24,000/- 2. Expenses on medicine treatment and transport: Rs. 3,75,769 3. Expenditure of attendant: Rs. After considering the evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 21,94,769/- in favour of the respondent No. 1 under the following heads : 1. Loss of future income: Rs. 12,24,000/- 2. Expenses on medicine treatment and transport: Rs. 3,75,769 3. Expenditure of attendant: Rs. 1,50,000/- 4. Pain and sufferings: Rs. 80,000/- 5. Loss of amenities of life and pleasure: Rs. 1,60,000/- 6. Plastic Surgery : Rs. 1,00,000/- 7. Three tyres scooter : Rs. 90,000/- 8. Special diet: Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 21,94,769/- 8. A perusal of the claim petition reveals that respondent No. 1 suffered various injuries and got treatment from Dr. Hardas Singh, Orthopedic Hospital & Superspeciality Research Centre, Amritsar and also at Jammu. In the claim petition, no claim was made by the respondent No. 1 in respect of plastic surgery and three tyres scooter. Further from the statement of the respondent No. 1 and Dr. Rakesh Kumar, it is evident that left leg below the knee of the respondent No. 1 was almost vestigial i.e. total non functional. Dr. Rakesh Sharma has clearly stated that permanent disability of the respondent No. 1 is 70% but when the same is compared with the whole body, the same shall be reduced to 25% to 30%, which shall be his functional disability. From the documents placed on record by the respondent No. 1 after filing of the appeal, it is evident that the left leg below the knee of respondent No. 1 was amputated on 29.07.2018. It appears that the respondent No.1 did not get the leg amputated initially perhaps with the hope that with the passage of time, the condition of the leg may improve. The respondent No.1 has placed on record the bills amounting to Rs. 35,003/- in respect of medical treatment undergone by him after the passing of the award impugned. The respondent No. 1 has spent an amount of Rs. 35,003/- which included charges of Rs. 20,000/- for amputation of the part of lower limb and the balance amount for the medicines purchased by him. 9. There is no documentary evidence with regard to the monthly income of the injured. The claimant’s witness Radhey Sham has stated that the respondent No.1 earns an amount of Rs. 20,000/ to 25,000/ by selling milk in Akhnoor form his dairy business. 9. There is no documentary evidence with regard to the monthly income of the injured. The claimant’s witness Radhey Sham has stated that the respondent No.1 earns an amount of Rs. 20,000/ to 25,000/ by selling milk in Akhnoor form his dairy business. The respondent No.1 in his claim petition and in his statement has stated that he was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/ per month. Therefore, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the injured/respondent No. 1 as Rs. 10,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has enhanced the monthly income of the respondent No. 1 by 50%. However, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the income of the respondent No. 1 was required to be enhanced by 40%, as respondent No. 1 was self employed and was 30 years of age at the time of accident. Thus, the total income of the appellant comes around to Rs. 14,000/-. The learned Tribunal has fixed the functional disability of the respondent No.1 as 40% despite the fact that the Dr. Rakesh Sharma has stated that the disability when compared to whole body would reduce by 25% to 30%, which shall be his functional disability. So, total loss of future earnings of the respondent No. 1 would be 4200x12x17= Rs. 8,56,800/-. An amount of Rs. 35,003/- has been spent by the respondent No. 1 after passing of the award. The same is required to be paid to him on account of purchase of medicine and transportation charges. Further, the compensation awarded to the respondent No. 1 under the head “pain and sufferings” is required to be enhanced to Rs. 1,60,000/-. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded under the head “expenditure of attendant” is also on higher side, accordingly the same is slashed to Rs. 50,000/. The compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- awarded under the head “loss of amenities of life” and Rs. 15,000/- awarded under the head “special diet” to the respondent No. 1 need no interference. However, no compensation is required to be paid on account of plastic surgery and purchase of three tyres scooter. 10. Taking judicial notice and the facts on record in the present case, which points out that the leg of the respondent No. 1 below the knee was amputated. However, no compensation is required to be paid on account of plastic surgery and purchase of three tyres scooter. 10. Taking judicial notice and the facts on record in the present case, which points out that the leg of the respondent No. 1 below the knee was amputated. The Court feels that this is a fit case for granting compensation for procurement of artificial limb/prosthetic limb. In Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Hon’ble Supreme court has awarded an amount of Rs. 12,80,000/- under the head “Cost of Artificial Limb and its maintenance” in favour of claimant who was 37 years of age, taking in to consideration the age of the appellant and the costs to be incurred for repair and maintenance of prosthetic limb. Besides the Hon’ble Apex Court also awarded compensation on account of disability and disfigurement suffered by the injured. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under : “COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROSTHETIC LEG 22. The High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,20,000/- for the prosthetic limb and Rs. 50,000/- towards repair and maintenance of the same. The Appellant submits that the cost of the prosthetic limb itself is Rs. 2,60,000/- and the life of the prosthetic limb is only 5-6 years. The prosthetic limb also requires repair and maintenance after every 6 months to 1 year, and each repair costs between Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000/-. This would mean that the prosthetic limb would last the Appellant for only 15 years under the current compensation. The Appellant at the time of the accident was aged 37 years and has a full life ahead. It has been clearly stated by this Court in the case of Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre (Supra) that the purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is being extracted herein: “In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is being extracted herein: “In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries.” “The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident.” 23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-. NON-PECUNIARY COMPENSATION 24. The High Court has upheld the compensation awarded by the Ld. Tribunal for non-pecuniary damages, which comes to Rs. 3,00,000/- in total. Considering the nature of the permanent disability caused by the accident and the effect it will have on the Appellant's life, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation provided by the High Court for non-pecuniary heads is inadequate. 25. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held that: “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. 25. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held that: “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. 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.” 26. In light of the above decision of this Court and the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation to be awarded is as follows: I. Compensation for pain and suffering - Rs. 2,00,000/- II. Compensation for Loss of Amenities of Life - Rs. 2,00,000/- III. Compensation for disability and disfigurement - Rs. 2,00,000/-” 11. As such, a sum of Rs. 12,80,000/ is awarded to the respondent No.1, who is 30 years of age, under the head “Cost of Artificial Limb and its maintenance”. Further in terms of judgment (supra) an amount of Rs. 1.6 lacs is also awarded to the respondent No.1 under the head “Compensation for disability and disfigurement”. 12. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the appellant/claimant is as under: 1. Loss of future income: Rs. 8,56,800/- 2. Expenses on medicine treatment and transport: Rs. 3,75,769+35003=4,10,772/- 3. Expenditure of attendant: Rs. 50,000/- 4. Pain and sufferings: Rs. 1,60,000/- 5. Loss of amenities of life and pleasure: Rs. 1,60,000/- 6. Special diet: Rs. 15,000/- 7. Artificial limb: Rs. 12,80,000/- 8. “Compensation for disability and disfigurement” Rs. Loss of future income: Rs. 8,56,800/- 2. Expenses on medicine treatment and transport: Rs. 3,75,769+35003=4,10,772/- 3. Expenditure of attendant: Rs. 50,000/- 4. Pain and sufferings: Rs. 1,60,000/- 5. Loss of amenities of life and pleasure: Rs. 1,60,000/- 6. Special diet: Rs. 15,000/- 7. Artificial limb: Rs. 12,80,000/- 8. “Compensation for disability and disfigurement” Rs. 1,60,000/- Total Rs, 30,92,572/- (Rupees thirty lacs, ninety two thousand, five hundred and seventy two only) 13. The impugned award dated 20.02.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeals are disposed of. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. No interest shall be payable for compensation awarded on account of loss of future income. The enhanced amount shall be deposited with the Registry within a period of three months from today. Award amount be released in favour of the respondent No. 1/claimant after due identification along with interest as per judgment of the learned Tribunal. 14. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 15. Record of the Tribunal be returned forthwith.