JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The claimant injured has challenged the judgment pronounced on 15.10.2009 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Vadodara in MACP No. 354 of 1993, raising the ground that his case has not been considered by deciding the functional disability, as the claimant was amputed below the knee of the left leg. The prospective rise in income was required to be assessed to decide the future loss. 2. Advocate Mr. Adnan Khan with Advocate Mr. M.T.M. Hakim for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had considered only 30% physical disability, while certificate of Doctor K.A. Baxi was produced on record at Exh.46 and Doctor was also examined vide Exh.45, to prove the permanent disability to the extent of 60%. 2.1 Advocate Mr. Khan submitted that as per judgment of Raj Kumar and Another vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Court was required to assess the functional disability, as the claimant had totally been handicapped because of the left leg amputation below the knee, since his foot was totally crushed in the accident, he was orthopedically handicapped. Mr. Khan submitted that the claimant was working as a cleaner on the truck and this very fact would sufficient enough for the Court to consider the functional disability. 2.2 Advocate Mr. Khan submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the sufferings of the claimant, who was admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient, and in his follow up treatment, he faced operation and was orthopedically amputed, and, thus stated that the amount under the head of pain, shock and sufferings was to be appropriately granted. 2.3 Advocate Mr. Khan further stated that the amputation of the leg has affected his day-to-day life and has also affected his self confidence and his standing in the society, and now he would not be in a position to carry on with the work as a cleaner, and looking to the longevity of the life, Mr. Khan submitted that the amount ought to have been granted under the head of loss of amenities. 3. Advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar submitted that the learned Tribunal has granted amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering, future loss of income and also under various heads, and stated that Rs. 1,19,000/- for the year 2009, would be considered as just compensation. 4. 3. Advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar submitted that the learned Tribunal has granted amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering, future loss of income and also under various heads, and stated that Rs. 1,19,000/- for the year 2009, would be considered as just compensation. 4. The facts of the case can be stated as under: 4.1 On 02.02.1993, at about 14:00 hrs., the claimant was on Truck No. GQD-4832 as a cleaner, and the truck was heading from Siddhpur towards Mumbai. When they were passing near village Jambuva, it is stated that, there was quarrel between the claimant and the driver for taking the passenger in the truck; the driver slow down the truck and threw the claimant out of the vehicle, thus his legs got crushed under the rear wheel of the truck. 4.2 The claimant sustained grievous injuries of tibia fibula fracture on his left leg. The claimant was amputed from the knee as well as suffered CLW injuries on the other parts of body. The incident was registered at Makarpura Police Station vide C.R. No. I-48/1993. Advocate Mr. Mazmudar submitted that it is a case of murder, thus outright the claim petition was required to be rejected, since the policy would not cover the risk, as is the case of murder simplicitor. 5. The Tribunal has referred to the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 1676 of 2009 decided on 20.06.2009, wherein it has been observed that, Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in dismissing claim petition, the accident is covered under the provisions of the M.V. Act as has occurred due to use of motor vehicle. Therefore, considering Section 163A, 165(1) and 166, if any accident occurs by use of motor vehicle, such person or legal representatives are entitled to file claim petition before claims Tribunal. The claims Tribunal has ignored to consider these relevant Sections while adjudicating the claim petition. The case of claimant squarely covered under aforesaid sections as accident occurred since rear wheel of same truck ran over his leg and due to that, claimant has received grievous injury. The, accident has occurred by use of motor vehicle, hence claimant would be entitled to have his case considered according to provisions of the M.V. Act. The case of claimant squarely covered under aforesaid sections as accident occurred since rear wheel of same truck ran over his leg and due to that, claimant has received grievous injury. The, accident has occurred by use of motor vehicle, hence claimant would be entitled to have his case considered according to provisions of the M.V. Act. 5.1 The Tribunal has also placed reliance on the judgment relied by the Advocate on record, where in case of Krishnan Sreemathy and Others vs. Padmanabham Gangadharan and Another, the High Court of Kerala has held that, accident arising out of use of motor vehicle, where owner of vehicle was driving the vehicle with the intention of killing someone but accidentally hit the deceased who was employed as cleaner on the vehicle. It was held that accident arose out of use of motor vehicle and legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to compensation. 5.2 Reliance has also been placed by the Tribunal, on the judgment of P.C. Patel vs. Bharat Transport Corporation, 1997 (1) GLH 455 , relied by the Advocate on record, wherein this Court to consider the negligence of driver, observed that judgment of Criminal Court acquitting and convicting the driver, at the best may provide corroboration to the evidence of claimant, claimant is required to prove his case independent of finding of Criminal Court. 5.3 The Tribunal has considered the deposition, panchnama and the plaint to observe that the accident had occurred by use of motor vehicle, and further opponent no. 1 had failed to enter the witness box to say as to how the accident had taken place and, therefore, the Tribunal had inferred the negligence of opponent no. 1 to consider him responsible for the accident. Hence, decided issue no. 1 in affirmative. This Court has not found any reason to upset the finding of the Tribunal. 6. Since to corroborate the pleadings of murder nothing has been brought on record to show that the driver was charged for murder under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The claimant was working as a cleaner on the truck and his left leg got crushed below the wheels. The claimant had proved the injury by giving his deposition at Exh.41. He was admitted in S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara from 02.02.1993 to 08.03.1993, where he had undergone two operations. The claimant was working as a cleaner on the truck and his left leg got crushed below the wheels. The claimant had proved the injury by giving his deposition at Exh.41. He was admitted in S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara from 02.02.1993 to 08.03.1993, where he had undergone two operations. Doctor K.A. Baxi, M.S. Orthopedic Surgeon had been examined, Exh.45, who had assessed the disability as 60% of the left lower limb, and has also stated that the left leg was amputated below the knee. The Doctor could not deposed the disability of the claimant for the body as a whole. 7. In the case of Raj Kumar and Another vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the concept of functional disability for the assessment of future loss of income due to permanent disability. Paras 8 to 14 of the said judgment are as under: “8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (‘Disabilities Act’ for short). The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (‘Disabilities Act’ for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. 10. 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. 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. 11. 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 terns 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 (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar vs. D.M. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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.” 8. Here, the claimant was working as a cleaner on the truck. He was amputed and suffered permanent disability on the lower limb, and now would have difficulty in climbing the stairs, doing his other works, nor would have in a position to walk naturally, appreciating the deposition of Doctor K.A. Baxi, 60% functional disability is required to be assessed of the present claimant. 8.1 The claimant-cleaner had deposed that he was earning Rs. 2,100/- but could not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. The learned Tribunal has considered Rs. 15,000/- as notional income. 8.2 Having considered the notional income, the Tribunal was required to assess the claimant’s prospective rise in income, which as per the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , would come to 40% i.e. Rs. 6,000/- (15,000 x 40/100), hence, his yearly income would come to Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. 15,000 + 6,000). To the reasons given hereinabove, having considered 60% functional disability and applying the multiplier of 14 taking into consideration the age of the claimant, the amount under the head of future loss of income would come to Rs. 1,89,000/- (21,000 x 60% x 15). 8.3 The claimant would not have been in a position to work efficiently for about 12 months. This Court considering the injury, length of the treatment, facing amputation, grants Rs. 15,000/- under the head of actual loss of income. 1,89,000/- (21,000 x 60% x 15). 8.3 The claimant would not have been in a position to work efficiently for about 12 months. This Court considering the injury, length of the treatment, facing amputation, grants Rs. 15,000/- under the head of actual loss of income. 8.4 This Court, without entering into any justification, concurs with the amounts granted by the Tribunal under the heads of medical expense, special diet, attendance charges and transportation; however, it would require to be noted that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering is on a very lower side. The claimant at the age of 38 years, cleaner by vocation, would have to deal with the amputed leg through out his life. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Adnan Khan has referred to the judgment of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 2023 SC 186 , to impress upon the Court that no material compensation can be sufficient enough to completely negate trauma and suffering of the injured as well as family members. Mr. Khan submitted that in such case and in circumstances, it becomes a duty of the Court to compensate the claimant, so that he could cope with the loss suffered, and, thus, urged that sufficient compensation be granted under the head of pain, shock and sufferings, and also urged for the compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life. 10. In Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (supra), the Apex court had considered 60% loss of future earning capacity and has granted an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head of pain, shock and sufferings, and Rs. 2,00,000/- for the loss of amenities of life. Thus, keeping in mind the observation and conclusion in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (supra), this Court considers that it would be just and reasonable to grant Rs. 2,00,000/- each under both the heads, adding to consider that the claimant would be in need of money, to even purchase prosthetic limbs and, to deal with his future life. 11. In view of the above, amount under different heads would be: Heads Amount Future loss of income Rs. 1,89,000/- Actual loss of income Rs. 15,000/- Medical expense Rs. 5,000/- Special diet Rs. 4,000/- Transportation Rs. 5,000/- Attendance Charges Rs. 5,000/- Pain, shock and sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs. 6,23,000/- 12. 11. In view of the above, amount under different heads would be: Heads Amount Future loss of income Rs. 1,89,000/- Actual loss of income Rs. 15,000/- Medical expense Rs. 5,000/- Special diet Rs. 4,000/- Transportation Rs. 5,000/- Attendance Charges Rs. 5,000/- Pain, shock and sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs. 6,23,000/- 12. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation as Rs. 1,19,000/-. The claimant would be entitled to get Rs. 5,04,000/- (6,23,000 - 1,19,000) as enhanced compensation at the rate of 7.5%. The same be deposited within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this court. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 15.10.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Vadodara in MACP No. 354 of 1993 would stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 14. Out of the total amount, as per the modified award, 80% thereof be disbursed to the original claimant, by Account Payee cheque, after due verification; the remaining 20% shall be invested in Fixed Deposit with any nationalized Bank in the name of the original claimant, for a period of two years, and after two year, the said amount be paid to the applicant with interest accrued thereon, without any reference to the Court.