JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) 1. Appellant/Claimant has preferred the instant misc. appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 (Act of 1988) seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (Tribunal) vide judgment and award dated 05.01.2016, which later on was modified on 29.02.2016 by learned Tribunal in MAC Case No.1072/2013, for the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation of Rs.7,94,796/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon the non-claimants jointly and severally. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 140 & 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 24,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. It was stated in the claim petition that on 20.03.2013 at about 11:00 am, while the appellant was going on the road Kasya-Singoli on his motorcycle in right direction and when he reached near MP Boarder, a Car bearing registration number RJ-27-CB-6615 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle, as a result of which appellant and his wife suffered injuries. An FIR of the accident was also lodged at Police Station, wherein after investigation charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending car for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Sections 184, 134/18 of the Act of 1988. In the accident, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries and his right leg was amputated above the knee and thereby he sustained permanent disability to the extent of 100%. It was further stated in the claim petition that the appellant was an agriculturist and apart from doing the agriculture work, the appellant was employed in Uparmal Dhakad Stone Mines and thus was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. 3. Despite service of the summons upon non-claimants No.1 and 2, nobody appeared on their behalf and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against them on 20.03.2014 by the learned Tribunal. 4. Non-claimant No.3/respondent No.3 contested the claim petition filed by the appellant by filing reply to the same. The non-claimant No.3 insurance company denied the accident being caused by the insured vehicle. 4. Non-claimant No.3/respondent No.3 contested the claim petition filed by the appellant by filing reply to the same. The non-claimant No.3 insurance company denied the accident being caused by the insured vehicle. It was stated in the reply that the FIR was lodged with a delay of three days, which was lodged by one Ratanlal, who also was plying his motorcycle and the appellant injured was plying his motorcycle. While they were talking to each other and while the motorcycles were plied near, they lost the balance and collided and sustained injuries. However, with a view to claim compensation, the offending car was involved in the matter. An objection with respect to driver of the offending vehicle not having valid and effective licence was raised and thus on account of violation of the conditions of the policy, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. A prayer for rejection of the claim petition was made. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.01.2015 proceeded to frame five issues including relief. In support of his claim petition, the claimant examined himself as AW.1 and also examined Dr. Rajendra Lodha as AW.2. In documentary evidence, the claimants exhibited Ex.1 to Ex.142. The non-claimants however did not lead any evidence, either oral or documentary. 6. The learned Tribunal thereafter heard arguments of the counsel for the claimant and non-claimant No.3 and vide judgment and award dated 05.01.2016, which was modified on 29.02.2016, proceeded to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.7,94,796/- for injuries suffered by the claimant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition while holding all the non-claimants jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. 7. The instant misc. appeal was admitted on 15.07.2016 and thereafter service of notice upon the respondent No.1/owner was dispensed with at the request of counsel for the appellant on 22.08.2023. Despite service of notice on respondent No.2/driver, nobody has put in appearance on his behalf. 8. 7. The instant misc. appeal was admitted on 15.07.2016 and thereafter service of notice upon the respondent No.1/owner was dispensed with at the request of counsel for the appellant on 22.08.2023. Despite service of notice on respondent No.2/driver, nobody has put in appearance on his behalf. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that although as per Disability Certificate (Ex.11), the appellant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 80%, however, on account of amputation of his right leg above the knee, the appellant/claimant has became vegetable for being not able to carry out the job of an agriculturist and skilled job in the firm, where he was working prior the unfortunate accident. Learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that there is 100% disability as such and therefore, the compensation under the loss of income deserves to be enhanced accordingly. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that at the time of accident, the appellant/claimant was 50 years of age, however, the learned Tribunal not awarded any amount towards future prospects, which he submits that the same ought to have been 25%. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant for his treatment remained hospitalized for a period of 25 days at Mewar Hospital, Bhilwara, however, for his remaining hospitalized, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgments in the cases of Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. : AIR 2012 SC 782 , Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir and Ors. : 2015 (2) AWC 1475 (SC) and Benson George Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. : AIR 2022 SC 1216 . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company while opposing the submissions made by counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the present misc. appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 11. This Court finds that the appellant/claimant, on account of suffering 80% permanent disability, would not be able to carry out the job of an agriculturist/skilled labour resulting in his loosing livelihood and he will not be able to discharge any work on accoun of amputation of the right leg above the knee. 11. This Court finds that the appellant/claimant, on account of suffering 80% permanent disability, would not be able to carry out the job of an agriculturist/skilled labour resulting in his loosing livelihood and he will not be able to discharge any work on accoun of amputation of the right leg above the knee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Soni (supra) considering the permanent disability sustained by the injured, though has held as under: “The question of loss of earning capacity resulting from amputation of one the legs in the case of a tanker driver was considered by this Court in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. : (2008) 8 SCC 518 . In that case, a tanker driver suffered serious injuries in a motor accident and as a result, his right leg was amputated upto the knee joint. He made a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that disability suffered by him as a result of the loss of the leg was 100% and awarded compensation to him on that basis. In appeal, the High Court, like in the present case, referred to the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and held that the loss of a leg on amputation amounted to reduction in the earning capacity by 60% and, accordingly, reduced the compensation awarded to the tanker driver. This Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the tanker driver had suffered 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee and, accordingly, restored the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation….” 12. This Court also considers the fact that at the time of accident the appellant/claimant was 50 years of age and was an agriculturist on account of his sustaining 80% permanent disability, the claimant would not be able to discharge the duties of any kind of manual labour, or engage in any agricultural operations whatsoever, for his sustenance, the appellant/claimant has thus sustained 100% disability. This Court also considered the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Ors. : 2011 (1) SCC 343 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “10. This Court also considered the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Ors. : 2011 (1) SCC 343 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “10. 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 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 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 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 applied]” 13. The aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) has also been considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. : AIR 2019 SC 3128 . In the case of Parminder Singh (supra), the disability of the appellant therein was assessed by the Medical Board at 75.%, which was permanent in nature, and the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: - “5.6 In the present case, it is an admitted position that it is not possible for the Appellant to get employed as a driver, or do any kind of manual labour, or engage in any agricultural operations whatsoever, for his sustenance. In such circumstances, the High Court has rightly assessed the Appellant’s functional disability at 100% insofar as his loss of earning capacity is concerned. The Appellant is, therefore, awarded Rs.32,40,000/- towards loss of earning capacity.” [emphasis applied] 14. In such circumstances, the High Court has rightly assessed the Appellant’s functional disability at 100% insofar as his loss of earning capacity is concerned. The Appellant is, therefore, awarded Rs.32,40,000/- towards loss of earning capacity.” [emphasis applied] 14. Thus, considering the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Raj Kumar (supra) and Parminder Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhancement of the compensation towards the loss of income considering his monthly income at Rs.4316/- while applying multiplier of 13 and sustaining 100% disability while adding 25% future prospects, which is quantified as under: Loss of Income: Permanent Disability 100% of 4316 x 12 x 13 = Rs.6,73,296/-. The appellant/claimant has already been awarded compensation of Rs.5,38,629/- towards loss of income, thus under this head the compensation is, accordingly enhanced by Rs.1,37,667/-. 15. So far as the future prospects is concerned, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the said head, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi : 2017 (16) SCC 680 , this Court is of the opinion the appellant/claimant is entitled to future prospects, which is quantified as under: 4316 x 12 x 13 = 6,73,296 x 25% = Rs.1,68,324/-. 16. This Court also considered the argument raised by counsel for the appellant for awarding compensation for the expenses incurred for attendant, pain and suffering and special diet to the appellant/claimant. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation to the claimant for his remaining hospitalized for a period of 25 days, however, looking to the fact that the appellant sustained injuries, on account of which, his right leg was amputated above the knee, therefore, while following the ratio decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir Hussein (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- for his remaining hospitalized for a period of 25 days and Rs.12,500/-towards attendant charges (which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal). This Court finds that towards mental agony/pain and suffering the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which is just and proper. 17. This Court finds that towards mental agony/pain and suffering the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which is just and proper. 17. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties and having gone through the material placed before me, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant deserves to be enhanced. 18. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the instant misc. appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 05.01.2016, which was modified on 05.01.2016 by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara, is modified and the appellant/claimant is held entitled to get enhanced compensation as under: S. No. Particulars Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded and enhanced by this Court 1. Compensation for permanent disability to the extent of 100%. Rs.5,38,629/- Rs.6,73,296/- 2. Future prospects 25% Nil Rs.1,68,324/- 3. Medical Bill Rs.1,93,666/- Rs.1,93,666/- 4. Hospitalization charges (25 x 600) Nil Rs. 15,000/- 5. Attendant Charges (25 x 500) Rs.12,500/- Rs. 12,500/- 6. Mental Agony/Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Total Total Rs.11,12,786/- Rs.11,12,786 – 7,94,795 = Rs.3,17,991 19. The appellant/claimant is thus held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.3,17,991/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the said amount along with the interest from the date of passing of judgment and award to the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Record be sent back.