JUDGMENT : 1. The Insurance Company has challenged the judgment dated 20.01.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Gandhidham, Kachchh in MACP No.838 of 1999. 2. The accident had occurred on 15.04.1996 at about 2:00 in the afternoon near Municipality at Anjar. The claimant was a cleaner on Truck No.GJ-12-U-9925, and they were going from Anjar to Gandhidham. While on their route, when they reached Anjar Municipality, they met with the accident with Tractor No.GUX-8235. 2.1 It is the case of the claimant that tractor had come on the wrong side in rash and negligent manner, and had dashed with truck; as a result he sustained grievous injuries. Initially, he was taken to G.K. General Hospital, Bhuj, and thereafter to Doctor Hotchandani Hospital at Gandhidham. The claimant had suffered grievous injury on the left leg and after the operation, left leg was amputated. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Palak H. Thakkar submitted that the Insurance Company has raised the dispute with regard to the finding, where the accident is attributed to the negligence of the truck driver. Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that the claimant himself has stated in his evidence, as an eye witness to the incident, that the tractor had come on the wrong side and had caused the accident. 3.1 Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that the FIR has been given by the truck driver. The claimant was working as a cleaner on the truck. Though the evidence was on record by way of FIR and the panchnama, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the negligence of the driver of tractor and has erred in not believing the eye witness to the incident. 4. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. F.B. Brahmbhatt for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has, on observing the facts by placing reliance on the complaint - Exh.37, and the panchnama - Exh.38, submitted that the Tribunal has not believed any negligence on the part of the tractor driver, since the complaint suggests that the tractor was following the truck, and, thus, there would not be any question of tractor coming on the wrong side. 4.1 Advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt further submitted that the observation has been made by the Tribunal that there was no damage to the tractor, and there were no any signs or marks of any accident on the tractor. 4.2 Advocate Mr. 4.1 Advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt further submitted that the observation has been made by the Tribunal that there was no damage to the tractor, and there were no any signs or marks of any accident on the tractor. 4.2 Advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt further stated that the Tribunal has rightly observed that there would not be any cause of injury by a tractor to the cleaner, who was sitting in the cabin of the truck, as the height of the tractor would not have reached the left side of cabin of the truck, to even affect the cleaner or to reach the cleaner by any accident. 5. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence in an accident between truck and the tractor, has considered the fact that the claimant was cleaner on the truck, and the claim made by the claimant was that the accident was because of the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor No.GUX-8235, as it was in full speed and had dashed with the truck and, therefore, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries, who was operated on the left leg which was amputated. 5.1 The learned Tribunal has referred to the FIR - Exh.37 and panchnama - Exh.38, where Exh.37 does not disclose the name of the accused. The complaint states that the truck was comint behind, and was on the correct side of the road, and the tractor had come on the wrong side to dash with the truck, which was moving ahead. 5.2 In consideration to that contents of the FIR, the learned Tribunal has observed that if the truck was on its correct side of the road, then there was no need of the tractor to come on the wrong side. Further, the learned Tribunal has observed that the cabin of the truck would be at a height and, therefore, there would not have been any accident, as stated by the claimant. Further, the place at which the cleaner would have sat in the cabin, would not be at the reach of the tractor, and after the dash, it would not be possible that he would have sustained injuries because of dash of the tractor. 5.3 Learned Tribunal has also referred to Exh.38 - panchnama of place of accident. On the left side of the truck, the blood stains were noted, while the Tribunal observed that there was no damage to the tractor. 5.3 Learned Tribunal has also referred to Exh.38 - panchnama of place of accident. On the left side of the truck, the blood stains were noted, while the Tribunal observed that there was no damage to the tractor. The tractor was at a hotel and no damage marks were found on the tractor. Thus, in that facts of the case, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that it would be difficult to believe that by such an accident, there would not have been any damage to the tractor. Further, it has been noted that the claimant would be sitting on the cleaner side in the cabin, and the height of cabin of the truck would be more than that of the tractor, and the dash on the left side would not have reached even to the height, where the cleaner was sitting in the cabin to cause the injury. 5.4 The learned Tribunal thus had come to the conclusion that the Tractor was wrongly and with ill intention been joined in the matter. The learned Tribunal, thus, concluded that it was because of the absolute negligence of the truck driver that the accident had occurred and therefore had attributed the total negligence of the truck driver. 6. It has been contended by learned Advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar that initially, the claim petition was filed against the driver and owner of the tractor and when it had come to the knowledge that the tractor was not insured, later the truck driver and the owner with the insurance company were made party to the proceeding. 7. On the submission raised by the advocates of the parties it becomes relevant to note that the claimant, though had put up a case against the driver and owner of the tractor, had later on joined the driver/owner of the truck with insurance company as parties respondent. Learned Tribunal has rightly observed about the factum of accident, since the FIR does not clarify as to how and in what way the tractor had come on a wrong side, and further had it come on the wrong side, then it would have travelled crossing the road, and, then at the first instance, the dash would be on the right side of the truck. The Tribunal has observed that there was no marks or signs of damage on the tractor, and the description of the accident shows that there would have been force, if at all any accident would have occurred, then ultimately would have damaged the tractor also. 8. The Tribunal is required to appreciate the evidence, which comes on record and on the analysis of the evidence during the trial, the Tribunal has to decide about the negligence. Mere, relying on the contents of the FIR or the charge sheet would not be sufficient enough, where the very fact stated in the FIR becomes an improbable case. 8.1 In the case of Gaura Devi And Others Vs. Shahzad Khan And Ors., reported in 2013 (2) ACC 173, before the Division Bench Allahabad High Court in First Appeal From Order No.3002 of 2012, it has been argued that after investigation police has submitted charge-sheet against the respondent No.1, so no other conclusion can be drawn except that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving of the jeep. The Division Bench observed that the argument has no force, and the claimants have not examined the investigation officer in support of their case, and charge-sheet by the police in a criminal case pertaining to the accident does not ipso facto proves that the concerned accused was solely responsible for the accident. It was held that in motor accident claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act no such interference can be drawn. Further, observed that the claimants have not examined the material witness to prove the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Merely because respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted by the police in criminal case pertaining to the instant accident, it cannot be held that he was responsible for the accidental death of the deceased. 9. Advocate Mr. Palak has also argued about the quantum aspect, stating that Mark 33/7, the certificate of salary, has not been believed by the Tribunal, where it is a case of 19 years old working as a cleaner on the truck. 9.1 Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that the Tribunal has assessed monthly income as Rs.3,500/-, which would not be even payable to a skilled driver, hence, urged to consider the case on the basis of minimum wages schedule on the date of accident. 10. The claimant has lost his leg in the accident. 9.1 Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that the Tribunal has assessed monthly income as Rs.3,500/-, which would not be even payable to a skilled driver, hence, urged to consider the case on the basis of minimum wages schedule on the date of accident. 10. The claimant has lost his leg in the accident. Firstly, he was taken to J.K. General Hospital; thereafter shifted to Ortho Surgeon, Doctor Hotchandani’s Hospital as an indoor patient, where he was given the treatment and thereafter when it was found that there was Gangrene, his leg was amputated from the knee. Doctor Hotchandani had issued certificate at Exh.48, which shows 50% of disability for body as a whole. Doctor Hotchandani had also produced his affidavit at Exh.41, and in the cross-examination Doctor had stated that his operation charges and other expenditure was to the tune of Rs.25,150/-, and he had assessed 50% of disability for the body as a whole. 10.1 The assessment of functional disability could be made by following the judgment of Raj Kumar And Another Vs. Ajay Kumar And Another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 . The Doctor had considered 50% disability, which is to be believed, hence, as the schedule in part-II of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, by referring to the disability, lays down the percentage of loss of earning capacity, and as per Part-II, if there is an amputation below knee, then 50% physical disability has to be assessed. The learned Tribunal, thus, accordingly has considered 50% of the disability. 11. In case of Jakir Hussein V. Sabir & Ors., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 252 , the Supreme Court has laid down that the functional disability is to be considered as per vocation/carrier/job ability to pursue carrier and loss of carrier. 12. Here, the claimant would now not be in a position to work as a cleaner with amputated leg. The Tribunal has not even granted any amount for artificial limb, nor any amount has been granted for the future medical expenses. The income assessed as Rs.3,000/- with prospective rise, and thereafter, considering 50% of the physical disability, the yearly loss has been assessed, and under the said head, by applying multiplier of 16, the future loss of income has been assessed as Rs.2,88,000/-. The income assessed as Rs.3,000/- with prospective rise, and thereafter, considering 50% of the physical disability, the yearly loss has been assessed, and under the said head, by applying multiplier of 16, the future loss of income has been assessed as Rs.2,88,000/-. It is required to be noted that the claimant at the time of the accident was 19 years of age, and the right multiplier applicable would be 18. Even if, the income may not be considered as Rs.3,000/-, but keeping the fact that the claimant would have earned Rs.1,500/- per month with 40% prospective rise as Rs.600/-, he would have earned about 2,100/- per month. 12.1 Further, medical expense of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.15,000/- have been provided for special diet, for pain shock and suffering only Rs.15,000/- has been granted, and actual loss of Rs.25,000/- has been assessed, attendance charges of Rs.10,000/- has been provided, and for loss of amenities of life Rs.15,000/- has been granted. Further, Rs.5,000/- has been granted for transportation. 13. It has been stated by learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar that there is no Cross Objection to the appeal, nor any independent appeal has been filed by the claimant to challenge the compensation amount. 14. This Court is of an opinion that it is a case of amputation of the leg. The Tribunal was required to grant amount under the head of future medical expenses for the artificial limb. Taking into consideration the age, there would have been all possibility of changing the same twice or thrice during his lifetime, and for the maintenance of such prosthesis limbs. The claimant would now not be in a position to continue with his work; thus, following the judgment of Jakir Hussein V. Sabir & Ors. (supra) and Raj Kumar And Another Vs. Ajay Kumar And Another (supra), 100% functional disability is required to be considered so as to place the claimant in a position, to which he was prior to the accident. In that case, the assessment is to be made on Rs.2,100/- as monthly income, which adds to the prospective rise of Rs.600/- to the assessment of Rs.1,500/- per month, and applying multiplier of 18, the amount would be much higher than what has been granted. 15. In the result, there is no merits in the appeal, hence, stands dismissed. 15.1 Record and Proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.