JUDGMENT: Sumathi Jagadam, J. This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) represented by its General Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, against the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2008, awarding compensation of Rs.4,78,400/- to the respondent herein/claimant as against his claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. 2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant is that on 23.02.2007 at about 10.30 a.m., one Sri Muniraja as a rider and the claimant and another as pillion riders were going to Tiruchanur on a Yamaha motorcycle bearing No. AP 03S 2586, and when they reached near Padmavathi Kalyanamandapam, an A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No. AP 11Z 1732 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, the rider of the motorcycle died on the spot, and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati, and later, he took treatment in a private hospital. The claimant sustained a lacerated wound over the upper aspect of the right leg, deformity, swelling and tenderness over the right thigh and multiple other injuries. The right leg of the claimant was amputated up to knee level. The claimant was working as a Mechanic at Tirumala Hills and is earning Rs.200/- per day as of the date of the accident. 4. The case of the respondent-APSRTC is that the bus was proceeding to Padmavathi Bus Station, Tirumala, after picking up passengers from S.V. Bus Station. On observing a motorcycle coming in the opposite direction at high speed, the driver of the bus swerved to the extreme left side margin of the road, applied brakes, and completely stopped the bus. Despite that, the motorcycle dashed the right side bumper of the bus, resulting in injuries to the claimant. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, and there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, and there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred and if so, was it due to the fault of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-11Z-1732 of respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries and entitled to compensation and if so to what amount? 3. To what relief? 6. In order to establish his claim, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 got the Doctor examined as P.W.2, and marked documents as Exs.A.1 to A.4. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. 7. The Tribunal, by an order dated 19.04.2010, allowed the claim petition by granting compensation of Rs.4,78,400/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed by the respondent-APSRTC. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-APSRTC would contend that after noticing the motorcycle's speed, the bus driver applied brakes and stopped the bus. In spite of that, the rider of the motorcycle, in the process of crossing the bus, dashed the right side bumper of the bus; there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus; the Tribunal has given much reliance on the evidence of P.W.1; it is a case of contributory negligence and the award passed by the Tribunal suffers from legal infirmities and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would submit that the accident arose on account of negligent driving of the driver of the bus, and there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference of this Court. 10. The point for consideration is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced? POINT: 11. The claimant's case is that he is working as a mechanic and earning Rs.200/- per day. Because of his disability, he is not able to do skilled/heavy work. 10. The point for consideration is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced? POINT: 11. The claimant's case is that he is working as a mechanic and earning Rs.200/- per day. Because of his disability, he is not able to do skilled/heavy work. The medical certificate, i.e., Ex.A.4 issued by the Doctor, shows that the right leg of the claimant was amputated up to knee level, and the same is evident from the cross-examination of the Doctor. The appellant must depend on some other person for his needs, and it is not possible for him to continue his mechanic work by virtue of the amputation of his leg and loss of his survival. 12. The claimant is a Mechanic. Therefore, I cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim in the absence of any other evidence. Contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in my view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. In all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. The Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income based on some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point in time. In the present case, the claimant worked as a Mechanic and earned Rs.200/- per day. In my view, the claim is honest and bona fide. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to reduce the monthly income of the claimant from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. This Court, therefore, accepts the statement of the claimant that his monthly income is Rs.6,000/-. 13. I am of the opinion that while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability caused to claimants, the Courts must look at the case in totality and consider the socio-economic background of the claimants. The claimant herein comes from an economically weaker section of the society. The claimant was a young man and had to continue to live for the rest of his natural life without a leg, which would interfere with the enjoyment of his life. 14. It is almost universally seen that persons from marginalized backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily disabilities. The claimant was a young man and had to continue to live for the rest of his natural life without a leg, which would interfere with the enjoyment of his life. 14. It is almost universally seen that persons from marginalized backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily disabilities. This is because persons from marginalized sections of society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability often compounds such discrimination. In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes the duty of the Court to, at the very least, restore the claimant as best as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the disability, and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner. 15. To assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded, the Court must assess whether the permanent disability caused has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the claimant, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande and Anr (2017) 3 SCC 351 . The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted 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. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age.” 16. 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.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also laid out in the case of Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar and Anr (2011) 1 SCC 343 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 relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: “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. 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. 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 disability (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 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.” 17. It is a well-settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income but also future prospects. The Apex Court has reiterated in multiple instances that “just compensation” must be interpreted to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident. 19. The appellant, at the time of the accident, was aged 28 years and has a full life ahead. It has been clearly stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre vs. Pratap son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane Civil Appeal No.8420 of 2018 dated 21.08.2022, that the purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted herein: “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. 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 the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 , while dealing with different heads of compensation in injury cases, the Hon’ble Supreme 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 non-pecuniary 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. So far as non pecuniary 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.” 21. Due to the accident, the victim faced dramatic alteration in the physical image, so a major readjustment may be needed. Reliance on others may be a devastating thought because of the inconvenience and, in a larger sense, the idea of becoming a burden on others. Many people derive their identity from work/occupation; any disruption in work pattern or work accomplishment is very threatening. If remuneration is effected, an extra emotional burden is created. Any chronic or serious acute condition creates questions about the victim’s future and the extent to which there will be further incapacitation or physical or mental limitation, questions about financial indebtedness, and questions about permanent losses in daily activities. 22. If remuneration is effected, an extra emotional burden is created. Any chronic or serious acute condition creates questions about the victim’s future and the extent to which there will be further incapacitation or physical or mental limitation, questions about financial indebtedness, and questions about permanent losses in daily activities. 22. The claimant is only 28 years old as of the date of the accident, and he has a full life ahead. By virtue of the amputation of his leg up to knee level, he cannot get employment in any other field. Moreover, the evidence of the Doctor also states that the claimant cannot do his independent work without the assistance of another person. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court referred supra, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of 40% for loss of future earnings on his functional disability, apart from Rs.2,00,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss due to disfiguration. 23. Therefore, the income of the claimant is taken as Rs.200/- per day, and the monthly income comes to Rs.6,000/-. The future prospects are 40% i.e., Rs.2,400/- (Rs.6,000/- p.m. x 40%). The loss of earnings comes to Rs.11,99,520/- (Rs.8,400/- x 12 x multiplier ‘17’ as per Sarla Verma case x 70% disability). In addition, in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,00,000/- towards Loss due to Disfiguration and Rs.2,00,000/- towards Permanent disability. The total compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is Rs.16,99,520/-. 24. For the reasons aforesaid, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.4,78,400/- to Rs.16,99,520/-, and the respondent/claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.12,21,120/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. The claimant/respondent is entitled to receive the rest of the compensation amount. The appellant/APSRTC 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 respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon by filing the proper application. However, the respondent/claimant shall pay the requisite Court fee in respect of the amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed. 25. However, the respondent/claimant shall pay the requisite Court fee in respect of the amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed. 25. In the 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 respondent/claimant. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.