JUDGMENT : (J.C. Doshi, J.) 1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – original claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.9.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morbi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.291 of 1999. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 That the accident giving rise to the present appeal took place on 4/7/1999 at about 9:30 p.m. in the night when appellant along with one Mr. Jatin Ganatra were proceeding on Bajaj Scooter from Morbi to Rafaleshwar. At the same time, driver of Craine No. M.R.T. 8787 had parked his craine on the road without any signal or indicator and in utter violation of the rules road and the same could not be noticed by the driver of the Bajaj scooter and hence, took place and appelalnt received serious injuries. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the statutory liability caused to the claimant as his left leg was amputed from knee after receiving injuries in the road accident. Moreover, he would submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted 40% future prospect to the claimant, which is required to be granted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 . He would further submit that that the learned Tribunal in case of amputation granted Rs.15000/- towards pain, shock and suffering as compensation, did not grant compensation in regards to loss of amenities of the life and loss of marriage prospective. He would further submit that in nutshell, the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in granting compensation on the lower side. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, UP State Road Transport Corporation rendered in Civil Appeal No.9070-9071 of 2022. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating 30% self negligency of the claimant and deducted amount equal to 30% negligency from the total awarded amount worked out. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, UP State Road Transport Corporation rendered in Civil Appeal No.9070-9071 of 2022. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating 30% self negligency of the claimant and deducted amount equal to 30% negligency from the total awarded amount worked out. He would further submit that the claimant was the pillion rider in the scooter and therefore, the issue of negligency would be composite negligency to him and he has a choice to claim compensation from any of the tortfeasor i.e. either from the owner and insurer of the scooter or owner and insurer of the crane. Thus, the learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting amount equal to 30% negligency from the total awarded amount worked out. Upon such submission, he prays to enhance the compensation granted to the complainant. 4. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent – Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. She would further submit that the accident took place in the year 1999 and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken up the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2000/- in absence of any data or the evidence for the income. She would further submit that the claimant has not shown joined other vehicle involved in the road accident. She would further submit that since the accident took place in 1999, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering, attendant etc. Thus, she prays to dismiss the First Appeal. 5. Apt to note that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of Legislation. The concept of just and fair compensation is integral and seminal to the MV Act. The compensation to be awarded under the principle of just and fair compensation to the injured of the road accident or the legal representative/s of the deceased person is based on the principle of fairness, reasonableness and equability. Anguish of the heart or for mental turbulence being consequential result of the road accident cannot be actually compensated, but the quint essentiality lies in adopting holistic and pragmatic view to the computation of the compensation for the loss sustained, which is to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Anguish of the heart or for mental turbulence being consequential result of the road accident cannot be actually compensated, but the quint essentiality lies in adopting holistic and pragmatic view to the computation of the compensation for the loss sustained, which is to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Although exact or perfect arithmetical calculation of compensation for reparation of the loss arrived from the road accident is almost impossible. The Tribunal is bestowed with duty to make an endevour to award just compensation regardless of the amount claimed by the claimant. The determination of the quantum of compensation therefore, must be liberal and not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scale. Needless to state that money may be awarded, so that something tangible may be procured to reach something else of the like nature, which has been destroyed or lost, but money cannot renew physical frame that has been battered and shattered being a result of the road accident. Yet Tribunal to endavour to bring back victim to stage of pre-road accident as far as possible Thus, the award must be reasonable and cannot be assessed with moderation though it cannot at the same time be pity and what could be granted must be just, fair and equitable compensation. 6.1 Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, what could be noticeable that the incident took place in 1999 between the scooter and crane, where crane was standing on the road. The claimant. The claimant was a pillion rider in the scooter. The claimant was 19 years old at the time of road accident and therefore, multiplier of 16 applied by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side in view of judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi(supra). Noticeably, the left leg of the claimant was amputed just below knee and in such type of injury, the learned Tribunal instead of assessing the functional disability as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar, 2011 (1) SCC 343 , assessed the disability of the claimant to 35%, which is even below than the statutory disability stated in the Employees’ Compensation Act. Therefore, according to this Court, the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in assessing the disability aspect. Even the compensation for future prospect has not been granted. Therefore, according to this Court, the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in assessing the disability aspect. Even the compensation for future prospect has not been granted. So, the impugned judgment and award suffers from that illegality as well. Meager amount is assessed for the compensation of pain, shock and suffering as well as attendant charges etc. and no compensation has been granted for loss of amenities. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra) after referring to the judgment in case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 , quantified the compensation of Rs.2 lakh each for pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and for disablement. The relevant para is 24 and 25, which reads as under:- “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., (1995) 1 SCC 551 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 nonpecuniary 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. 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 nonpecuniary 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." 6.2 In view of the above aspect, the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and it is required to be enhanced. 6.3 Another defect from the impugned judgment and award could be found that the learned Tribunal did not understand the concept of contributory negligence and composite negligence. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Khenyei Versus New India Assurance Company Limited reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273 , after referring to the judgment in case of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors. [ 2008 (3) SCC 748 ] as well as in case of Pawan Kumar & Anr. V. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal & Ors. [ 2014 (3) SCC 590 ] has put the issue to the rest in para 18, which reads as under:- “18. This Court in Challa Bharathamma & Nanjappan (supra) has dealt with the breach of policy conditions by the owner when the insurer was asked to pay the compensation fixed by the tribunal and the right to recover the same was given to the insurer in the executing court concerned if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination for the tribunal and the issue has been decided in favour of the insured. The same analogy can be applied to the instant cases as the liability of the joint tort feasor is joint and several. In the instant case, there is determination of inter se liability of composite negligence to the extent of negligence of 2/3rd and 1/3rd of respective drivers. The same analogy can be applied to the instant cases as the liability of the joint tort feasor is joint and several. In the instant case, there is determination of inter se liability of composite negligence to the extent of negligence of 2/3rd and 1/3rd of respective drivers. Thus, the vehicle - trailortruck which was not insured with the insurer, was negligent to the extent of 2/3rd. It would be open to the insurer being insurer of the bus after making payment to claimant to recover from the owner of the trailortruck the amount to the aforesaid extent in the execution proceedings. Had there been no determination of the inter se liability for want of evidence or other joint tort feasor had not been impleaded, it was not open to settle such a dispute and to recover the amount in execution proceedings but the remedy would be to file another suit or appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.” “What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows : (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.” 6.4 Admittedly, the claimant was a pillion rider and he has not done anything in causing the road accident. Thus, he did not fall to the definition of tortfeasor. In these circumstances, the inter se negligency of two tortfeasor i.e. driver of the crane and driver of the scooter would be the issue of composite negligency for the claimant and he would have choice or option to claim compensation from either of the tortfeasor or from the both jointly and severally. Thus, the finding of deducting the amount equal to 30% self negligency of the scooter driver from the total compensation amount worked out is required to be set aside. 7. Therefore, I hold that the claimant are entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,57,900/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 8.1 The present appeal is partly allowed. 8.2 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.3,57,900/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of claim petition till its realization before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8.3 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. 8.4 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. 8.5 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. 8.6 Consequently connected civil application also stands disposed of.