JUDGMENT : This is a claimant’s appeal, arising out of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad dated 09.04.2009 in Claim Petition No. 638 of 2005, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, as set out in the claim petition, are : On 1st June, 2005, Ashish Kumar Yadav, the claimant-appellant[‘the claimant’ for short] was riding pillion on motorcycle UP 70 AF 6420, that had, in the rider’s seat, Rajesh Kumar Yadav. At about 06:30 a.m., when the two reached Village Rangpura, falling under the local limits of Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad (now Prayagraj), a dumper truck bearing Registration No. UP 70 AT 1665, driven at a high speed and negligently, approached from the opposite direction. It hit the motorcycle without sound of horn. The accident led the claimant to sustain grievous injuries. In consequence, the claimant has become permanently handicapped. At the time of the accident, the claimant was a young man of 22 years and a student. In consequence of the injuries, the claimant turned from an able-bodied man to a permanently handicapped and disabled individual. During treatment, the claimant’s right lower limb had to be amputated above the knee, leading him to develop a permanent handicap, which was assessed by the Chief Medical Officer as 50% permanent disability. The claimant had earned his bachelor’s degree and was preparing to write his competitive examinations and look for a job. The accident has left him permanently crippled to the extent that he is no longer in a position to secure a job or do business to earn his livelihood. His future has turned painful and bleak. The claimant suffers from constant pain at the situs of the grievous injury, that gives him pain and suffering permanently. It is still being treated and in future, would also require treatment and expenditure on medicines, in all likelihood. The claimant has to depend upon a special diet and take nourishing food, such as juices, fruits and tonics. He has to bear additional expenditure to buy the nourishing food required. There is inconvenience, difficulty, pessimism, that have become part of the claimant’s life. The injuries sustained in the accident and the after-effects are such that the appellant cannot live life the way he would and he cannot do his daily needs. He has to bear additional expenditure to buy the nourishing food required. There is inconvenience, difficulty, pessimism, that have become part of the claimant’s life. The injuries sustained in the accident and the after-effects are such that the appellant cannot live life the way he would and he cannot do his daily needs. He has to depend upon others. The likelihood is that this difficulty and dependency would continue for the remainder of his life. The injuries have caused such debilitation that the claimant cannot move about the way he earlier did, or use a vehicle for conveyance himself, as he would earlier do. The claimant, in order to compensate himself for the permanent injuries sustained, claimed a sum of 30 lacs under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[‘the Act of 1988’ for short] and 25,000/- under Section 140 of the said Act towards no-fault liability. The sum of money claimed in compensation has been sought to be awarded with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition until realisation. 3. Atmanand Singh is the owner of Dumper Truck No. UP 70 AT 1665. He is opposite party No. 1 to the claim petition and respondent No. 1 to this appeal. He shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the owner’. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 9th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Civil Lines, Prayagraj are the insurers of the offending dumper. They are arrayed as opposite party No. 2 to the claim petition and respondent No. 2 to this appeal. The aforesaid insurance company shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Insurers’. 4. The owner has put in a written statement, generally denying the allegations in the claim petition, except the fact that he is the owner of the offending vehicle. It is asserted that it was insured with the Insurers. The insurance policy was valid and effective from 24.01.2005 to 23.01.2006. It is also asserted that the driver had a valid driving licence, effective from 18.09.2004 to 17.09.2007. It is averred that the motorcycle rider and its owner have not been arrayed as parties, rendering the claim petition bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The insurance policy was valid and effective from 24.01.2005 to 23.01.2006. It is also asserted that the driver had a valid driving licence, effective from 18.09.2004 to 17.09.2007. It is averred that the motorcycle rider and its owner have not been arrayed as parties, rendering the claim petition bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding by the motorcycle rider, and it had happened an hour before the offending dumper truck reached the site of accident. The offending vehicle was framed in the accident on account of local political pressure. 5. The Insurers have put in a separate written statement, also denying the allegations in the claim petition. It is averred that they had no information about the accident. It is also pleaded that the offending dumper was driven by a driver, who did not hold a valid driving licence. The offending vehicle did not have a registration certificate or a fitness certificate. It was being operated in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the Insurers are entitled to claim benefit of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The further case of the Insurers was that the accident had not taken place in the manner alleged but due to the motorcycle rider's fault. 6. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal : 1. Whether on 1.6.2005 when the claimant was travelling on a motorcycle No. U.P. 70 AF 6420 and when he reached in village Rangpura P.S. Soraon at 6- 30 a.m. a truck No. U.P. 70 AT 1665 (Dumper) which was coming from opposite side was being driven in rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle causing grievous injuries to the claimant ? 2. Whether the said truck was not insured with the O.P. Company ? 3. Whether the truck driver did not possessed valid D.L. on the day of accident ? 4. Whether the truck was being plied against the conditions of insurance policy ? 5. Whether the insurance company is entitled to get benefit of section 64 V.B. of Insurance Act? 6. Whether the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle driver? 7. 4. Whether the truck was being plied against the conditions of insurance policy ? 5. Whether the insurance company is entitled to get benefit of section 64 V.B. of Insurance Act? 6. Whether the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle driver? 7. Whether the petition is defective as owner and driver of the motorcycle have not been arrayed as party as alleged in para 16-17 of W.S. 12 A? 8. Whether the claimant is entitled to any relief? If yes then how much and from whom? 7. The claimant has filed photostat copies of 14 documents, including a check F.I.R., two discharge cards, the physical handicap certificate, his educational certificates, the registration certificate of the offending vehicle and its fitness certificate. The Insurers have filed two documents, to wit, the certificate of the ARTO, Palamu, Jharkhand regarding the driving licence of the offending vehicle's driver and the certificate of insurance issued by them. 8. The Tribunal answered Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant, holding that the accident was caused partly on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the dumper truck. Issue No. 2 was decided against the Insurers and in favour of the claimant and the owner. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the claimant and the owner and against the Insurers, holding that there is no evidence to show that the driving licence of the dumper truck's driver is fake or forged. Issue No. 4 was also decided against the Insurers and in favour of the claimant and the owner, holding that the offending vehicle was not being plied against the conditions of the insurance policy. Issue No. 5 was decided against the Insurers and in favour of the claimant and the owners. Issue No. 6 was decided against the owner and the Insurers, holding that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving by the motorcyclist. Issue No. 7 was decided against the owner, at whose instance, it was framed and in favour of the claimant. It was held that given the findings on the other issues, it was not necessary to implead the owner, the rider and the Insurers of the motorcycle as parties to the claim petition. Issue No. 7 was decided against the owner, at whose instance, it was framed and in favour of the claimant. It was held that given the findings on the other issues, it was not necessary to implead the owner, the rider and the Insurers of the motorcycle as parties to the claim petition. Issue No. 8 relates to the quantum of compensation payable and the party obliged to satisfy the award. 9. It must be remarked that this is an appeal by the claimant, and as already noticed, effectively it is the finding on Issue No. 8 alone that is up for consideration in this appeal. Since liability to satisfy the award has been fastened on the Insurers, the appeal has been effectively heard, with the claimant supporting his case of enhancement, and, the Insurers, opposing it. The owner has not contested before this Court. 10. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the claimant, Mr. Amit Manohar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurers. No one appears for the owners. 11. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the claimant has earned his high school and intermediate certificate in the second division and was reading as a private candidate to earn his bachelor's degree. The Tribunal has, in view of the contemporary prospects of the injured, assessed his monthly income at a sum of Rs.5,000/-. On that basis, the annual income has been assessed as a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. The 50% physical handicap certificate has been considered as a 50% permanent loss of income. The Tribunal has also remarked that in future, the claimant can secure a job or undertake business and may get benefit of employment under the Physically Handicapped quota. 12. For the multiplier to be adopted, the Tribunal has fallen back upon the Second Schedule to the Act and looking to the age of the injured, a multiplier of 17' has been chosen. Thus, multiplying the annual income with the chosen multiplier of 17, the substantive entitlement on account of loss of income has been determined at a figure of Rs.5,10,000/-. The expenses towards treatment and medical procedures with reference to vouchers and receipts on record have been found by the Tribunal to be a sum of 4,11,648.76 which the Tribunal has rounded off to Rs.4,12,000/-. The expenses towards treatment and medical procedures with reference to vouchers and receipts on record have been found by the Tribunal to be a sum of 4,11,648.76 which the Tribunal has rounded off to Rs.4,12,000/-. Under the head of special diet, which the claimant had to consume, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Under the head of mental shock and pain, bearing in mind that the right lower limb of the claimant has been amputated, he has been awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-. It is in this way that a total sum of Rs.9,52,000/- has been awarded to the claimant in compensation. 13. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the claimant has argued that the compensation awarded is far below entitlement. What he does not dispute is the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal and the extent of loss of earning capacity caused by the accident. He submits that going by the age of the claimant, a multiplier of 18' ought to have been adopted. It is also argued that the Tribunal has erred in not granting anything towards total loss of income for six months that the injured was under treatment and bedridden. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not granting anything towards future prospects as also attendant charges for the six months of treatment. There is no objection to the award under the head of medical expenses, money spent on special diet and nourishing food. Learned Counsel, however, claims that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- ought to have been awarded in compensation towards permanent disability and Rs.2 lacs towards pain and suffering. In this connection, reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another., (2012) 12 SCC 274 and as regards compensation under the head of pain and suffering, upon the decision of the Supreme Court in V. Mekala v. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178 . A sum of Rs.2 lacs has been further claimed under the head of loss of amenities, and a further sum of Rs.3 lacs on ground of bleak prospects of marriage. In support of both the last mentioned heads of claim, learned Counsel for the claimant has relied upon V. Mekala (supra). A sum of Rs.2 lacs has been further claimed under the head of loss of amenities, and a further sum of Rs.3 lacs on ground of bleak prospects of marriage. In support of both the last mentioned heads of claim, learned Counsel for the claimant has relied upon V. Mekala (supra). As regards future medical expenses and the price of an artificial limb, a sum of Rs.2 lacs has been claimed. In this regard, learned Counsel for the claimant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Subulaxmi v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and another, (2012) 10 SCC 177 . The claimant says that the award ought to be appropriately enhanced. 14. Mr. Amit Manohar, on the other hand, says that the impugned award is a just and fair award, which need not be disturbed. It is particularly argued that the injured is a student and did not have any income in presenti. The income has been determined by the Tribunal notionally on the basis of education and other circumstances of the injured, which is a liberal figure of Rs.5000/- per month. 15. Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties, this Court finds that so far as the monthly income of the injured is concerned, the parties are ad idem. Thus, in order to work out the compensation payable, this Court proceeds on the assumption that the claimant had an income or notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is also not much in the realm of doubt that the 50% medical disability, that has been made basis by the Tribunal to infer a 50% functional disability, is correct assessment. The reason is that the disablement is no doubt permanent. It is the loss of a limb for a young man, who has just earned his bachelor's degree. The remarks of the Tribunal that the claimant might get employment under the handicapped quota is a mere possibility, and nothing more. It has to be borne in mind that for a young man, or for that matter, a person of any age, his health and physical fitness are the most fundamental features of his capability to earn. The remarks of the Tribunal that the claimant might get employment under the handicapped quota is a mere possibility, and nothing more. It has to be borne in mind that for a young man, or for that matter, a person of any age, his health and physical fitness are the most fundamental features of his capability to earn. No doubt, in certain kinds of employ, such as clerical job, the loss of a limb may lead to an inference about a lesser percentage of functional disability, compared to a person requiring physical exertions, like a mechanic or a driver. In the case of a driver, the loss of a limb may result in 100% physical disability. But, between these extremes, for a man yet to start off his venture of life, losing one of the lower limbs at the most conservative estimate, would be a 50% physical disability. We are in agreement with the Tribunal's opinion on this point. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. 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. 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 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. 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. 16. In the circumstances obtaining here, the principle in Raj Kumar (supra) would apply to infer a 50% disability, considering that the deceased was not yet employed but on the brink of it, aged just 22 years. Any further reduction of the numerical value of the functional disability based on some kind of a hypothesis about a possible future employment would be too conjectural. This Court, therefore, affirms the Tribunal's finding about the 50% permanent functional disability and a corresponding permanent loss of income. 17. Now, so far as the multiplier to be adopted is concerned, this Court is of opinion that the Tribunal has erred in falling back upon the Second Schedule of the Act. The law in this regard is well settled and it is, that the multiplier to be adopted is the one indicated in the table in Paragraph No. 40 of the report of the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Going by the aforesaid table, the injured falls in the bracket of 21-25 years, wherefor, a multiplier of 18' is envisaged. Therefore, this Court holds that the Tribunal has fallen in error in adopting the multiplier of 17. It should be 18. 18. So far as the future prospects are concerned, it is too well settled to brook doubt that the claimant must be held entitled to compensation for the loss of future prospects, whether he secured a job or pursued self-employment. It should be 18. 18. So far as the future prospects are concerned, it is too well settled to brook doubt that the claimant must be held entitled to compensation for the loss of future prospects, whether he secured a job or pursued self-employment. In case of a self-employed man, who was a carpenter, the Supreme Court in Jagdish v. Mohan and others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 granted future prospects to the tune of 40% of the income, following the decision of the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . In the State of Uttar Pradesh, going by the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Shukla and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 822 future prospects are to be awarded in accordance with Rule 220A(3) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998['the Rules of 1998' for short] and not the principle in Pranay Sethi (supra). 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. 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 Sethicannot 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. 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. 19. The accident here took place in the year 2005, and the Rules of 1998 came into effect on 26.09.2011. The question whether these rules would apply restrospectively to an accident that happened before the amendment has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar and others v. M/s. Sampark Lojastic Private Limited and others, (2017) 35 LCD 1311. In Sushil Kumar (supra) it was held : 31. Rule 220-A was inserted in the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 in view of the various decisions of the law courts for providing benefit on account of future prospects of the injured/deceased. It provides for addition of certain percentage of the income of the injured/deceased in his actual income depending upon the age of the injured/deceased for the purposes of determination of the compensation. The aforesaid Rule came into effect on 26.09.2011 after the decision of the claim petition but before filing of the appeal though the accident took place on 08.05.2010 much before the enforcement of the above Rule. 32. It is in view of the above that an argument is being raised that Rule 220-A of the Rules which came into effect on 26.09.2011 would not apply to the accident which had taken place on 08.05.2010. 33. In Ram Sarup Vs. Munshi AIR 1963 SC 553 it was laid down that a change in law during the pendency of an appeal has to be taken into account and will cover the rights of the parties. 34. The view expressed above was followed by the Supreme Court in Mula Vs. Godhu AIR 1971 SC 89 . 35. In Dayawati Vs. Munshi AIR 1963 SC 553 it was laid down that a change in law during the pendency of an appeal has to be taken into account and will cover the rights of the parties. 34. The view expressed above was followed by the Supreme Court in Mula Vs. Godhu AIR 1971 SC 89 . 35. In Dayawati Vs. Inderjit AIR 1966 SC 1423 the court had observed as under:-If the new law speaks in language, which expressly or by clear intendment, takes in even pending matters, the court of trial as well as the court of appeal must have regard to an intention so expressed, and the court of appeal may give effect to such a law even after the judgment of the court of first instance. 36. In Amarjit Kaur Vs. Pritam Singh AIR 1974 SC 2068 effect was given to the change in law during the pendency of an appeal as the hearing of an appeal under the procedural law of this country is in the nature of rehearing of the suit by superior court. 37. It was in the light of the above decisions that in Lakshmi Narayan Guin and others Vs. Niranjan Modak AIR 1985 SC 111 it was held that a change in law during the pendency of an appeal has to be taken into account and will cover the right of the parties. 38. The aforesaid decision was followed by a Division Bench of this court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Madhu Sharma and others, 2003 (4) AWC 2620 which was a case in relation to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was observed that it is apparent that the change in law during the pendency of the original proceedings has to be taken into account so as to cover the rights of the parties. 39. In view of above decision the view expressed by the Division Bench of this court in ICICI Lombard (Supra) is not of good law as it does not takes into account the decisions referred to above in holding that the Rule 220-A of the Rules which came into effect on 26.09.2011 would not apply to the accident that took place prior to the said date only for the reason that the Rule was not specifically stated to be retrospective in nature. 20. 20. In view of the law laid down in Sushil Kumar, the award of future prospects is to be made in accordance with Rule 220-A(3) of the Rules of 1998, even if the accident happened prior to the amendment. The said rule provides an addition of 50% of the income towards future prospects. The rule, no doubt, speaks about future prospects of the deceased, but there is no reason why it should be confined to the dependants of a dead man alone, and not a man living, who suffers the loss of a percentage of his income for the whole of his life. Considering that the injured here was aged 22 years, that is to say, below 40 years, an addition of 50% towards future prospects to his lost income has to be made. 21. The next head of compensation is in respect of attendant charges. The claimant was hospitalized from 01.06.2005 to 19.07.2005 and 01.08.2005 to 09.08.2005, that is to say, a total period of 1 month and 27 days. It has been stated by the claimant, while testifying as P.W.1 in his deposition on affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief, that he has suffered a permanent handicap and is unable to undertake daily activities. It is difficult for him to move about. He always needs the support of another. It is also stated that he has to make special arrangements in case he has to go out somewhere, which involves expenditure. It has been averred that the claimant cannot walk without another's support. In his cross-examination at the instance of the Insurers, nothing material has been elicited, which may dispel the above assertions. The claimant before this Court has demanded attendant charges for a period of six months after the accident at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. Given the nature of the injury and looking to the fact that the right lower limb of the injured had to be amputated, this Court is of opinion that attendant charges for six months at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month ought to be awarded. The medical bills, that have been accepted for a figure of Rs.4,12,000/- by the Tribunal, have not been disputed by the claimant, as also the sum of Rs.25,000/- towards special and extra-nourishing diet. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal on these two counts need not be disturbed. 22. The medical bills, that have been accepted for a figure of Rs.4,12,000/- by the Tribunal, have not been disputed by the claimant, as also the sum of Rs.25,000/- towards special and extra-nourishing diet. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal on these two counts need not be disturbed. 22. Learned Counsel for the claimant has asserted further claims under the head of permanent disability in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, for pain and suffering in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, Rs.2 lacs for loss of amenities, Rs.3 lacs for bleak prospects of marriage and Rs.2 lacs for future medical expenses and the cost of artificial limb. So far as the heads under which damages are to be granted in case of permanent disability, including the award of future prospects in an injury case, the question fell for consideration in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, AIR 2020 SC 4424 . After a survey of previous authority, it was held by their Lordships in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) thus : 11. Yet later and more recently in an accident case, which tragically left in its wake a young girl in a life-long state of paraplegia, this court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, reiterated that in addition to loss of earnings, compensation for future prospects too could be factored in, and observed that: "14. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, (1979) 4 SCC 365 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 996 : 1980 ACJ 55 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1666 )], this Court held : (SCC p. 366, para 2) "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) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250 : ( AIR 1995 SC 755 ), dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held thus : (SCC p. 556, para 9) "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, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161 : (AIROnline 2010 SC 125), this Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries : (SCC p. 348, para 6) "6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, 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). 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 Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638 : (AIROnline 2012 SC 633)], this Court held as follows : (SCC p. 276, para 2) "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, Section 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." ********* ********* ********** Loss of earnings 20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs 14,66,000. (emphasis by Court) 23. Now, reckoning the heads as laid down in Raj Kumar and endorsed in Pappu Deo Yadav, this Court has dealt with all the heads of entitlement for the claimant under pecuniary damages (special damages) except future medical expenses. The claimant before this Court has demanded a sum of Rs.2 lacs towards future medical expenses and price of artificial limb. Now, reckoning the heads as laid down in Raj Kumar and endorsed in Pappu Deo Yadav, this Court has dealt with all the heads of entitlement for the claimant under pecuniary damages (special damages) except future medical expenses. The claimant before this Court has demanded a sum of Rs.2 lacs towards future medical expenses and price of artificial limb. There is nothing said in the evidence of the injured about the use of an artificial limb, but this Court cannot ignore from consideration the fact that the permanent disability certificate and the parole evidence show that the right lower limb of the claimant has been amputated in consequence of the accident. Even if he has not yet resorted to an artificial limb, he is certainly in need of it and would use one anytime in future to improve the quality of life. The expenses for securing such a limb are not a remote cause, but a direct impact of the accident that he has suffered. There is testimony to the effect that whenever there is pain, the appellant has to be treated for it. The condition of the claimant shows that he would incur medical expenses to take care of the condition emergent on account of accident in future also. Regarding the cost of replacement of an artificial limb, which would also take in its fold the acquisition of one for the first time, I have held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ghaziabad v. Lokesh alias Lovesh and another, 2023 (2) ADJ 461: 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.... 24. 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.... 24. Taking into account the potent likelihood of the injured requiring an artificial limb at any time and future medical expenses, which appear to be recurrent, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.2 lacs towards future medical expenses and cost of the artificial limb, including future replacements, if necessary. The Court cannot, in such matters, take a very pedantic view based on pleadings and evidence, as the learned Counsel for the Insurers wants. 25. Thus, this Court would have to take a realistic view about the imminent possibility of the injured requiring an artificial limb at any time in future and the future medical expenses involved, given that he has lost his right lower limb to the accident, amputated above the knee. 26. This would bring in consideration of the non-pecuniary damages/general damages. The appellant has demanded a sum of Rs.2 lacs for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the accident. Learned Counsel for the claimant has placed reliance upon the decision in V. Mekala to say that the compensation under this head should be enhanced to Rs.2 lacs. He has invited the attention of the Court to Paragraph No. 21 of the report, where it has been held : 21. The compensation under the head pain and suffering and mental agony was awarded by the High Court after recording concurrent findings with the award passed by the Tribunal. However, the courts below have not recorded the nature of the permanent disablement sustained by the appellant, while awarding Rs 1,00,000 under this head which is too meagre an amount and is contrary to the judgment of R.D. Hattangadi [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Govind Yadav [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422] cases. The relevant paragraphs of Govind Yadav case [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422] cases. The relevant paragraphs of Govind Yadav case [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422] read as under: (SCC p. 695, paras 25-26) “25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meagre. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the tribunals and the courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. 26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs 1,50,000 in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg.” Therefore, under this head the amount awarded should be enhanced to Rs 2,00,000 as the doctor PW 2 has opined that at the time of walking with support of crutches, the appellant claimant will be suffering pain permanently. Therefore, under this head it has to be enhanced from Rs 1,00,000 to Rs 2,00,000. 27. Going by the principle in V. Mekala, there is absolutely no hindrance in awarding a sum of Rs.2 lacs under the head of pain, suffering and trauma occurring in consequence of the accident. So far as loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life (shortening of life) which includes bleak prospects of marriage are concerned, I had considered the issue in Lokesh (supra) where it was held, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar, as follows : 25. So far as loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life (shortening of life) which includes bleak prospects of marriage are concerned, I had considered the issue in Lokesh (supra) where it was held, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar, as follows : 25. …...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. Therefore, in the opinon of this Court, so far as loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life or pain in future are concerned, a token sum of Rs.2,000 ought to be awarded in this case. 29. 2,000/- ought to be awarded instead of Rs. 50,000/-. 28. Therefore, in the opinon of this Court, so far as loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life or pain in future are concerned, a token sum of Rs.2,000 ought to be awarded in this case. 29. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is required to be revised and determined as follows : (A) PECUNIARY DAMAGES (SPECIAL DAMAGES) : (1) Expenses relating to to treatment, hospitalization and medicines = Rs.4,12,000/- (2) Expenses incurred on special diet and nourishing food = Rs.25,000/- (3) Attendant charges = Rs.30,000/- (4) Compensation towards expenses for future and current replacement of artificial limb = Rs.2,00,000/- (5) Loss of earning suffered by the injured on account of the accident : (i) Loss of monthly income (to the claimant) =Rs.2500/- (ii) Lost monthly income + future prospects (lost monthly income x 50%) = Rs.2500 + 1250 = Rs.3750/- (iii) Lost annual income to the claimant = Rs.3750x12 = Rs.45,000/- (iv) Total income lost = Rs.45,000 x 18 = Rs.8,10,000/- (B) NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES) : (1) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma in consequence of the injuries = Rs.2,00,000/- (2) Loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life or pain in future = Rs.2000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION PAYABLE = Rs. 4,12,000 + 25,000 + 30,000 +2,00,000 + 8,10,000 + 2,00,000 + 2,000 = Rs. 16,79,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand only) 30. The impugned award is modified and it is ordered that the Insurers shall pay in compensation to the claimant a sum of Rs.16,79,000/-. 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. 31. 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 direction of the Tribunal shall remain intact. 32. In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part. 33. Costs easy.