JUDGMENT : (Nyapathy Vijay, J.) The present M.A.C.M.A is filed questioning the Judgment and Decree dated 25.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.494 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The Insurance Company is the Appellant herein. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- On the intervening night of 21/22.06 .2015, the Claimant along with his friend by name M.V. Raghava Satish went to Chennamma Circle, Kallur Estate of Kurnool Town on his motor cycle. While the Claimant was waiting by the side of his motorcycle on the road side margin, the offending lorry bearing No.AP 02 X 8995 owned by the Respondent No.1 and driven by the Respondent No.3 came from Gooty Town side in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Claimant and also the motorcycle. As the Claimant suffered serious injuries, he was immediately taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for medical treatment. On the medical advice, the Claimant was shifted to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter called as “KIMS”) at Secunderabad, where he took medical treatment and was discharged on 30.06.2015. The M.V.O.P was filed under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. As per the particulars furnished in the claim petition, no injuries were mentioned as fracture of right hand wrist, right leg, the segmental fracture of bones of right leg, lacerated wound over right elbow and grievous and bleeding injuries on the entire body. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that due to the accident, the Claimant is unable to sit or stand without the help of walking stick. 4. The Insurance Company filed its counter contending that the offending lorry was not involved in the accident at all and the Claimant had colluded with the Police and had foisted a criminal case against the driver of the lorry for the purpose of claiming compensation. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred on 22.06.2015, but the criminal complaint was lodged on 13.07.2015 and there was a delay of 23 days in lodging the complaint. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred on 22.06.2015, but the criminal complaint was lodged on 13.07.2015 and there was a delay of 23 days in lodging the complaint. It is further pleaded that the accident had occurred on 22.06.2015, but the Petitioner filed the claim petition in the month of October, 2016 and there was no reason, which is forthcoming for the delay in lodging the criminal case, the delay in filing the claim petition and the other aspects of the claim there also. 5. The Respondent Nos.1 & 3 i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively remained ex parte and did not contest the case. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- 1) Whether the accident occurred on 22.06.2015 at 12.10 a.m. midnight near Chennamma Circle, Kallur Estate of Kurnool Town due to rash and negligent driving of R3 being driver of lorry bearing No.AP 02 X 8995 wherein petitioner sustained injuries? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 6. In the course of trial, the Claimant examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.24 to support his claim. Ex.X.1 and Ex.C.1 were also marked in support of the claim. On behalf of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. 7. The Tribunal considering that the right leg of the Claimant was amputated and he had underwent two surgeries in KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad (as per the evidence of P.W.3) granted compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- due to loss of earnings on account of partial/permanent functional disability and in total awarded compensation of Rs.72,85,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. Hence, the present M.A.C.M.A is filed. 8. Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. 9. 8. Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the manner in which the delay in registering the F.I.R. after lapse of 23 days from the date of accident followed by the manner in which the Police apprehended the driver of the offending vehicle on 18.08.2015 and the driver of the offending vehicle admitting to the accusation before the criminal Court on 01.09.2015 and being convicted and receiving imposition of fine of Rs.1,000/- makes the claim highly doubtful and in the absence of any evidence explaining these curious aspects, the claim petition could not have been entertained by the Tribunal. In furtherance of the said argument, it was contended that the claim petition having been filed on 19.10.2016, it was only then the Insurance Company was informed of the accident followed up by conviction, though there is no limitation prescribed under the Act in filing the application makes the claim of the ridden with suspicion. It was further contended that the Tribunal had erred in granting compensation under the habit of loss of earnings without determining the functional disability, vis-a-vis the nature of business of the Claimant. It was further contended that the income of the Claimant had actually increased as per the income tax returns filed by the Claimant and therefore, the trial Court erred in granting compensation on the basis of disability certificate without considering the functional disability. 10. The counsel for the Respondent-Claimant in response thereto relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others , [ (2011) 4 SCC 693 ] in support of his claim that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not fatal as the primary concern of the near and dear of the Claimant is to see that the best medical attention is given to him rather than to go to Police Station and give complaint. As regards the apprehension of the driver and the consequential conviction within a span of two weeks, counsel for the Respondent contended that throwing suspension on the Claimant is not appropriate as the Police after doing investigation have arrested the driver and filed the charge sheet. As regards the apprehension of the driver and the consequential conviction within a span of two weeks, counsel for the Respondent contended that throwing suspension on the Claimant is not appropriate as the Police after doing investigation have arrested the driver and filed the charge sheet. The Investigation by the Police cannot be doubted by the Insurance Company as the investigation report was acted upon and conviction was imposed by the criminal Court on the driver by imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- vide judgment dated 01.09.2015. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation, counsel for the Respondent contended that the compensation awarded by the trial Court need not be interfered considering the nature of injuries and the handicap suffered by the Claimant. 12. In the light of the submissions of the respective counsel, the following issues fall for consideration: (a) Whether the delay in lodging the complaint before the Police with regard to the accident is fatal to the case of the Claimant? (b) Whether the methodology of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal in the case of injuries is sustainable? 13. Issue (a) : The counsel for the Appellant emphasised on delay in lodging the complaint. In the opinion of this Court, the delay in lodging the complaint may not be a ground to doubt the accident, as the normal human reaction would be to immediately attend to the wellbeing of the victim. The question of going to Police Station and lodging a complaint would arise only after the victim is in a stable state of health and after the shock of accident tapers off. In this case, the Claimant after being treated at Government General Hospital, Kurnool, was immediately shifted to KIMS, Hyderabad as apparent from the record and only after the health of the Claimant was stabilised, the complaint before the Police was lodged. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi ‘s case (1 supra) had considered this aspect and held that the delay in lodging the F.I.R is not determinative to doubt the Claimants case. Paras 17, 18 and 19 thereof are relevant for this aspect and the same are extracted for ready reference: “17. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the Claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the Claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if Claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 14. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 14. Apart from the above, the Medical Officer of KIMS hospital, Hyderabad had informed the jurisdictional IV Town P.S., Kurnool about the admission of the Claimant in their hospital due to accident on the intervening night of 22.06.2015 as per the Medico Legal Cases Register. This document was marked as Ex.A.24 and as per this document, intimation of accident was given to IV Town P.S., Kurnool at 12.10 p.m. on 22.06.2015. 15. In view of the above, the issue (a) i.e. the mere delay in lodging the complaint before the Police Station per se cannot be a ground to doubt the Claim and therefore, Issue (a) is answered in favour of the Claimant. 16. Issue (b) : The claim petition nor the evidence of Claimant as P.W.1 speak about any amputations. However, in the discharge summary marked as Ex.C.1, the factum of above knee amputation was mentioned. Apart from that, P.W.3 also spoke about amputation above knee caused to the Claimant. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of the Doctor Uday Krishna Myneni as P.W.3 and Ex.C.1, the amputation of the Claimant above knee cannot be doubted. As regards the methodology of compensation, the Tribunal awarded the same taking into consideration the percentage of disability of the petitioner @ 80% relying on Ex.A.11 disability certificate and it adopted a multiplier of 15 while awarding compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- towards loss of earnings due to partial/permanent functional disability. 17. This methodology by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the law determined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another , [ (2011) 1 SCC 343 ] regarding compensation for disability. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the Tribunal should first decide whether there is any permanent disability and the effect of such permanent disability on the income earning ability of the Claimant. Paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment which are relevant are extracted hereunder for ready reference: “12. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the Tribunal should first decide whether there is any permanent disability and the effect of such permanent disability on the income earning ability of the Claimant. Paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment which are relevant are extracted hereunder for ready reference: “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. 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 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.” 18. After considering various aspects for determining compensation, the principles were summarised at paragraph 19 thereof and they read as under: “19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-Claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” 19. In the present case, the Claimant appears to be involved in the business, but the nature of business is not forthcoming from the record. The Claimant in support of his claim had filed Exs.A.6 to A.10 and A.12 to A.14 i.e. income tax returns for the years 2012-13 to 2019-2020. As per the income tax returns, the income of the Claimant from 2012-13 to 2019-20 are as under: Sl.No. Assessment Year Total Income 1. 2012-13 Rs.3,94,620/- 2. 2013-14 Rs.5,11,023/- 3. The Claimant in support of his claim had filed Exs.A.6 to A.10 and A.12 to A.14 i.e. income tax returns for the years 2012-13 to 2019-2020. As per the income tax returns, the income of the Claimant from 2012-13 to 2019-20 are as under: Sl.No. Assessment Year Total Income 1. 2012-13 Rs.3,94,620/- 2. 2013-14 Rs.5,11,023/- 3. 2014-15 Rs.6,43,438/- 4. 2015-16 Rs.6,28,170/- 5. 2016-17 Rs.5,73,490/- 6. 2017-18 Rs.7,04,609/- 7. 2018-19 Rs.7,85,468/- 8. 2019-20 Rs.8,76,431/- 20. The income of the Claimant has apparently increased and this aspect was admitted in the cross-examination of P.W.2 i.e. income tax Inspector. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of P.W.2 reads as under: “The income of the petitioner is more in 2019-2020 when compared to 2015-16.” 21. The heads under which compensation can be awarded in the cases of injuries are specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar’s case (2 supra) at Para 6 and the same is extracted hereunder: “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the Claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 22. Under pecuniary damages, the loss of income is one of the heads for grant of compensation. Even if the Claimant is not entitled for compensation under this particular head, the Claimant would still be entitled for compensation under other heads/non-pecuniary damages as explained in the following paragraphs. 22. Under pecuniary damages, the loss of income is one of the heads for grant of compensation. Even if the Claimant is not entitled for compensation under this particular head, the Claimant would still be entitled for compensation under other heads/non-pecuniary damages as explained in the following paragraphs. Towards pecuniary damages, the Claimant would be entitled to medical expenses. The compensation under this head should be classified into past medical expenses and future medical expenses. Compensation towards Medical expenses (a) Medical Expenses: The Tribunal relied on Ex.A.5 (Medical bill for Rs.1,13,430) and Exs.A.23 (Bunch of 13 receipts totalling to Rs.11,644/-) and awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. Exs.A.19 to 22 are the expenses incurred by the Claimant towards Ambulance service and lodging facilities at Hyderabad when the Claimant came down to Hyderabad for treatment at KIMS, Hospital. Therefore, the Claimant would be entitled to ambulance expenses of Rs.12,500/- and lodging expenses incurred by the Claimant i.e. Rs.5,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- totalling to Rs.35,000/- under Exs.A.19 to 22 respectively. (b) Future Medical Expenses: The Claimant as stated above was amputated above knee as per the discharge summary (Ex.C.1). The Claimant had purchased prosthetic limb from Total Prosthetics & Orthotics India (P) Ltd., for Rs.4,60,000/- as established vide Exs.A.16 and A.17. The Orthopaedic surgeon, who treated the Claimant was examined as R.W.4. 23. The artificially fitted limbs would require changes in the lifetime of the Claimant as the longevity of prosthetics will depend on how often the Claimant wears and treats it, body changes, and activity level. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 1017 considered life of prosthetic limb and awarded compensation so that the Claimant therein can buy three prosthetic limbs and maintain the same at least till the age of 70 years. Paragraph 23 of the said Judgment is extracted for ready reference; “23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/- .” 24. In this case, there is no mention of the frequency at which the prosthetic limb has to be changed. However, it is a matter of prudence that the prosthetic limb of the Claimant would have to be changed at least once in his lifetime. Therefore, factoring inflation vis-a-vis the cost incurred under Exs.A.16 and 17, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards prosthetic limbs alone. The future medical expenses are assessed @ Rs.50,000/-. 25. Attendant Charges: A physical frame that has been battered and shattered cannot be restored but the compensation given, should be in a position to help the injured to be put back in the position he was, at least with the help of an attendant. The right leg of the Claimant was amputated upto knee level and he would be requiring an attendant all-through. The methodology to be arrived at in computing non-pecuniary damages was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others , [ (2020) 4 SCC 413 ] . In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while computing the non-pecuniary damages of a young child whose disability was assessed at 100%, had opined that the attendant charges should also be on the multiplier system rather than random payment by the Courts. 26. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the Claimant therein required two attendants and adopted a multiplier of 18 and awarded compensation of Rs.21,60,000/- under that head. Paragraphs 22 to 24 of the said judgment are extracted as under: “Attendant charges 22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @ Rs. 2,500/- per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs. 13,20,000/-. Paragraphs 22 to 24 of the said judgment are extracted as under: “Attendant charges 22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @ Rs. 2,500/- per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs. 13,20,000/-. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. vs. R.M.K. Veluswami , AIR 1962 SC 1 . The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the Claimant and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of 'just compensation' within the meaning of the Act. 23. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the observation of Lord Reid in Taylor vs. O' Connor, 1971 AC 115 "Damages to make good the loss of dependency over a period of years must be awarded as a lump sum and that sum is generally calculated by applying a multiplier to the amount of one year's dependency. That is a perfectly good method in the ordinary case but it conceals the fact that there are two quite separate matters involved, the present value of the series of future payments, and the discounting of that present value to allow for the fact that for one reason or another the person receiving the damages might never have enjoyed the whole of the benefit of the dependency. It is quite unnecessary in the ordinary case to deal with these matters separately. Judges and counsel have a wealth of experience which is an adequate guide to the selection of the multiplier and any expert evidence is rightly discouraged. It is quite unnecessary in the ordinary case to deal with these matters separately. Judges and counsel have a wealth of experience which is an adequate guide to the selection of the multiplier and any expert evidence is rightly discouraged. But in a case where the facts are special, I think that these matters must have separate consideration if even rough justice is to be done and expert evidence may be valuable or even almost essential. The special factor in the present case is the incidence of Income Tax and, it may be, surtax." 24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in various cases like Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti and Ors., 1966 ACJ 57 , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362 , Sandeep Khanduja vs. Atul Dande and Ors, (2017) 3 SCC 351. This Court has also recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the Claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court. 27. The above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed in a series of judgments of recent origin viz., Master Ayush v. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., & another , [2022 Livelaw (SC) 330] Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon & another , [2022 Livelaw (SC) 569] and Divya v. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another , [2022 Livelaw (SC) 892] 28. Applying the said principle to the facts of this case, the extent of amputation of the right leg of the Claimant has to be treated as 100% as the right leg was amputated almost up to the knee area. The Claimant would be requiring at least two attendants all through to attend the daily works for the rest of his life. The minimum wages for domestic workers as per G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 01.11.2011 issued under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is Rs.4,521/- for 8 hours. In the opinion of this Court, taking into consideration future attendant wages, this Court fixes average monthly attendant charges at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and adopts a multiplier of 14 as the Claimant was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. In the opinion of this Court, taking into consideration future attendant wages, this Court fixes average monthly attendant charges at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and adopts a multiplier of 14 as the Claimant was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. The Claimant’s entitlement of compensation under this head, is as under: Rs.5,000 x 12 x 14 x 2 = Rs.16,80,000/ 29. Conveyance charges : Coming to the conveyance charges, considering the nature of amputation, the Claimant would not be in a position to avail any public transport and this Court is of the opinion that the principle of multiplier method would have to be adopted even while computing the conveyance charges to the Claimant. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the conveyance charges have to be provided to the Claimant by adopting the same multiplier. The entitlement of compensation to the Claimant under this head is as under: Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.8,40,000/- 30. Pain, suffering and loss of amenities : The determination of damages towards this head is not easy and there is no accepted methodology in giving compensation under this head. While awarding compensation under this head, the physical disability alone is not the criteria, but the psychological impact caused by amputation on the life of the Claimant should also be factored in. 31. The amputation to the Claimant and persons similarly situated is medically acknowledged, in various journals as leading to depression, anxiety, loss of self-esteem and eventually to isolation from the social life. With advancing age, these problems would only become more acute. The normal joys of life like going to a movie, restaurant, travel, a stroll in the park or bazaar etc., with his family and friends are difficult to enjoy and a concentrated effort has to be made by people around the Claimant in spending a normal evening like others. 32. This reduced quality of life and emotional distress have a traumatic impact on the quality of life of the individual. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards pain, physical and psychological suffering and loss of amenities. Though no material compensation can negate the trauma of the Claimant, the law only knows the language of monetary compensation. 33. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards pain, physical and psychological suffering and loss of amenities. Though no material compensation can negate the trauma of the Claimant, the law only knows the language of monetary compensation. 33. The Revised Compensation: Therefore, the revised compensation payable to the Claimant is as under: (1) Attendant charges : Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 14 x 2 = Rs.16,80,000/- (2) Conveyance charges: Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 8,40,000/- (3) Pain suffering and loss of amenities: = Rs.7,50,000/- (4) Medical Expenses : Rs.1,13,430+11,644+12,500+35,000+4,60,000 = Rs.6,32,574/- (5) Future Medical treatment : Rs.8,00,000/- (6) Miscellaneous expenses Rs 50,000/- Total : Rs.47,52,574/- 34. Interest: The interest @ 9% awarded by the Tribunal is fair and is supported by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul Sharma & another v. National Insurance Company Limited and others , [ (2021) 6 SCC 188 ] , Kirthi and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , [ (2021) 2 SCC 166 ] , Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others , [2022 SCC Online SC 1683] and R.Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. , , [ (2022) 5 SCC 107 ] on this aspect. 35. Result : The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.