JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company in M.V.O.P.No.659 of 2005 aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) awarding compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- to the petitioner. 2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are: On 27.06.2003, the petitioner went to Avanigadda village on his Bajaj motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-6AA-2868 keeping the petitioner as a pillion rider. After completing their work, they returned to Vuyyuru at about 10.30 a.m., and when they reached Puligadda Aqueduct, the 1st respondent, who drove the vehicle at high speed and, while averting to hit a lorry coming in the opposite direction, lost control over the vehicle. As a result, the vehicle hit the divider wall; due to the said impact, the petitioner fell and sustained injuries to his right leg above the knee. The 1st respondent escaped unhurt, took the petitioner to Vuyyuru in his vehicle, and got him admitted to Charithasree Hospital, Vijayawada, for treatment. Thereupon, the petitioner’s right leg was amputated. Avanigadda P.S. registered a case in Crime No.88 of 2003 against the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is the owner, and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle; hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 4. The first respondent did not file a counter. The second respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying all the material allegations in the petition. 5. During the enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, and Exs.A.1 to A.20 and Exs.X.1 to X.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined, and Ex.B.1-copy of the policy was marked. 6. Having considered the material available on record and the rival submissions of both the counsel, the Tribunal, by an order dated 29.04.2008, partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- i.e., for pain and suffering of Rs. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined, and Ex.B.1-copy of the policy was marked. 6. Having considered the material available on record and the rival submissions of both the counsel, the Tribunal, by an order dated 29.04.2008, partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- i.e., for pain and suffering of Rs. 1,20,000/-; for medical expenses of Rs.50,000/-; for cost of artificial limb and its maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/-; and loss of amenities of life of Rs.1,50,000/-, against the respondents and directing the 2nd respondent/Insurance company to deposit the total compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Challenging the same, the Insurance company preferred the instant appeal. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has relied on judgment reported in 2002 (6) ALD 362 (AP), which is not applicable as the risk of the pillion rider is not covered under the policy. The Tribunal has not examined the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.B.1-policy, and no proof has been filed regarding loss of income, including artificial leg. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/petitioner submits that the petitioner was about 37 years old as of the date of the accident and is doing business in Cable T.V. Net Work. He is the Proprietor of Prudhvi Satellite & Communications at Vuyyuru and earns Rs.10,000/- per month. The Doctors issued Ex.A.20 medical certificate to the effect that the physical disability of the petitioner was estimated at 75%. The petitioner was supplied with an artificial leg by Endolite India Limited at a cost of Rs.1,02,000/- which is apparent from the evidence of P.W.3. The petitioner is the only breadwinner of his family consisting of his wife, children and parents. Because of the accident, he is not able to move from one place to another without the assistance of other people, and his family members are deprived of his income and are struggling financially. However, the Tribunal concluded that the mere amputation of the right leg of the petitioner would not cause any prejudice to him to do his business. The petitioner could employ another person to look after his business, and the total loss of earnings cannot be granted to the petitioner. In Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Co. However, the Tribunal concluded that the mere amputation of the right leg of the petitioner would not cause any prejudice to him to do his business. The petitioner could employ another person to look after his business, and the total loss of earnings cannot be granted to the petitioner. In Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “18. In our view, the principles laid down in Aravind 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 accident.” 10. In the case of Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar, (2012) 2 SCC 267 , 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. The 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. 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. The Court enhanced the loss of earning capacity from 50% to 90%. 11. P.W-2 is the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at Charithasree Hospital and he deposed that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, and they treated the petitioner for the reconstruction of knee ligaments. On 03.07.2003, reconstructive vascular surgery was done. P.W-3 is the Prosthetist and Ortholist at Endolite India Limited, Branch Office in Hyderabad. He filed his authorisation letter along with invoices issued at the time of fitment of the artificial limb and his Company issued Ex. A-11 and Ex.A-12 to A-15, and the artificial limb costs Rs.1,02,000/-. P.W-4 is the Professor of Orthopaedics and Head of the Department of Dr Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Foundation, Gannavaram. Ex.A-20 is the medical certificate issued in the petitioner's name, which shows that the petitioner suffered 75% disability. 12. This Court must assess whether the permanent disability caused has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the petitioner, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande, (2017) 3 SCC 351. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereunder: - “The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration thus is to assess whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. We feel that the conclusion of the MACT on the application of aforesaid test is erroneous. A very myopic view is taken by the MACT in taking the view that 70% permanent disability suffered by the appellant would not impact the earning capacity of the appellant. The MACT thought that since the appellant is a chartered accountant he is supposed to do sitting work and therefore his working capacity is not impaired….. A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily able. The MACT thought that since the appellant is a chartered accountant he is supposed to do sitting work and therefore his working capacity is not impaired….. A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily able. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age.” 13. It is to be noted that it is not easy for those who lose a limb to lead the life both mentally and physically. Amputation can negatively affect persons and inevitably change their lives as well as the lives of their loved ones. While it may not be a cakewalk, life after amputation is simply finding new roots and challenges. The petitioner has suffered with 75% disability and cannot work independently. As the petitioner is doing business in a cable TV network, whenever there are any complaints from customers or a breakdown of cable wires, he should immediately attend to that work. But, due to the accident, the petitioner cannot move from one place to another without the assistance of another person to attend to regular work. Because of sudden changes, it is not possible for him to adjust to work and to run his business, which he used to do before the accident. Apart from that, the petitioner should be able to pay salary to the person to be engaged by him. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that the mere amputation of the right leg of the petitioner will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner from doing his business is incorrect. The person who suffers from amputation will only know the problem or situation faced by him/her in society. 14. Except for raising a plea that the petitioner is a pillion rider and no extra amount was paid for his coverage, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company could not substantiate the same. Ex. B1 is the policy of the insurance company which is in force as of the date of the accident. The seating capacity of the motorcycle is two (2), which include the rider and another person, and as the policy is comprehensive, it also includes the pillion rider; hence, the insurance company cannot say that the pillion rider is not entitled to compensation. The seating capacity of the motorcycle is two (2), which include the rider and another person, and as the policy is comprehensive, it also includes the pillion rider; hence, the insurance company cannot say that the pillion rider is not entitled to compensation. In Balu Krishna Chavan vs. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 932, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Hence, the only aspect for our consideration herein, is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, an order to direct the Insurance Company to “pay and recover”, is required to be made. On this aspect, the law is well settled that if the insurance company's liability is decided and they are held not to be liable, ordinarily, there shall be no direction to “pay and recover”. However, in the facts and circumstances arising in each case, appropriate orders are required to be made by this Court to meet the ends of justice.” 15. In view of the judgement mentioned earlier, the policy itself is a comprehensive policy that covers both the rider and the pillion rider. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company is liable to pay compensation and answered accordingly. 16. In Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “16. Compensation awarded does not become `just compensation' merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. For example, if on the same or similar facts (say deceased aged 40 years having annual income of Rs.45,000/- leaving him surviving wife and child), one Tribunal awards Rs.10,00,000/- another awards Rs.5,00,000/-, and yet another awards Rs.1,00,000/-, all believing that the amount is just, it cannot be said that what is awarded in the first case and the last case is just compensation. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. 17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. 17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation.” 17. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , it is observed that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of the permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Apex Court observed as under:- “Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation.” 18. The petitioner has suffered permanent disability of 75% and has an amputated right leg above the knee, amongst other injuries. He is not salaried but self-employed and manages his business. For the petitioner to be able to augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around. He cannot drive independently, which further hinders his mobility. This proves that the functional disability of the petitioner will severely impact his earning capacity. Therefore, I believe that the loss of future earning capacity must be calculated in the light of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 19. The petitioner, at the time of the accident, was aged 37 years and had a whole life ahead. The Apex Court has clearly stated it in the case of Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre Vs. Pratap Son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane, (2018) Supreme (SC) 845 that the purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to his position before the accident as best as possible. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “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 extracted hereunder: “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.” 20. In view of the above discussion and in the circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to enhancement of compensation and his income is considered as Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner was 37 years old at the time of the accident. The applicable multiplier laid down would be 15. The loss of future income must be calculated when the petitioner suffers permanent disability as a result of injuries, and assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would be defended on his earning capacity, i.e. the annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.1,20,000/- ( Rs.10,000/- X 12 months) and loss of future income at the level of his disability i.e. 75% of 1,20,000/- would come to Rs.90,000/- and if the multiplier 15 is applied, the loss of future earnings would come to Rs.13,50,000/- (Rs.90,000 X 15). The petitioner claims reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.50,000/- and claims artificial leg and loss of amenities of Rs.2,50,000/- for which he is entitled. Apart from that, I find it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering by him and his family. The total compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is Rs.17,50,000/-. 21. For the reasons aforesaid, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.4,20,000/- to Rs.17,50,000/-, and the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.13,30,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. The total compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is Rs.17,50,000/-. 21. For the reasons aforesaid, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.4,20,000/- to Rs.17,50,000/-, and the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.13,30,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after deducting the amount deposited earlier, if any, and on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon by filing the proper application. However, the petitioner shall pay the requisite Court fee for the amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed. 22. As a result, the appeal is dismissed, but with modifications in the award passed by the Tribunal concerning the amount of compensation, as made herein above, in favour of the petitioner. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.