JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1669 of2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode.The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal. 2. The case of the claimant is that on 07.07.2010 at about2.45 p.m., while the claimant was travelling on a bus from Koduvally to Nooramthodu driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the bus dashed on a KSRCT bus, whereby the claimant sustained serious injuries including amputation of her right leg. The claimant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ?13,70,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 were the owner, driver, and the insurer of the bus, respectively. Despite service of notice, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The 3 rd respondent Insurance Company statement, admitting the insurance policy, but challenging the quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A7 service were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a total compensation of ?4,24,360/- under different heads with interest @7% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 3rd respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company. 5. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging compensation under the following heads:- Notional Income:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a Bachelor of Arts student as well as a Tuition teacher by profession. She had claimed an amount of ?4,000/- towards the income the tribunal had taken only an amount of ?2,500/-. The learned counsel further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (13) SCC 236 , the monthly income ought to have been taken at ? 7,500/-, since the accident is of the year 2010. Considering the fact that the injured was a degree student as well as the tuition teacher, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation I find it appropriate to refix the income as ?8,000/-. Ltd. 2011 (13) SCC 236 , the monthly income ought to have been taken at ? 7,500/-, since the accident is of the year 2010. Considering the fact that the injured was a degree student as well as the tuition teacher, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation I find it appropriate to refix the income as ?8,000/-. Since the disability assessed is 50 %, by adding 40% future prospects to the income now fixed, the amount would be ?11,200/- (8,000x40%+8,000) for the purpose of calculating permanent disability. Maintenance of Prosthesis:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after the accident, she was using prosthesis and incurred huge amounts towards the purchase of the prosthesis. She has produced documents, along with I.A No.1 of 2025 to show that she had purchased prosthesis. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment of the apex court in Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Suraj Kumar and Ors. MANU/SC/0706/2025, wherein the Apex court has granted an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards purchase of prosthesis for an injured person who was aged 22 years, considering that the victim would require the change of at least 5 prosthetic limbs during his lifetime, considering his age. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the bills produced reveals that, upto 2025 she had purchased prostheses and had spent around ?1 lakh. It is a fact that there was an amputation of the right leg below the knee. She has produced her photograph along with I.A. 1 of 2025. On a perusal of the said photograph it is seen that there was an amputation of the right leg below the knee. She was aged 20 years at the time of accident and was a B.A. student as well as a Tuition teacher. It is submitted that she got married and is having three children in their wedlock. Here the injured was aged 20 years at the time of accident. Following the judgment in Suraj Kumar (supra) I find that the appellant in this case is also to be awarded a total amount of ?10,00,000/- towards prosthesis. The bills reveal that she had purchased prostheses costing around 25,000 and 45,000, respectively. This Court is inclined to grant ?10,00,000/-(including maintenance) towards purchase of prosthesis. Following the judgment in Suraj Kumar (supra) I find that the appellant in this case is also to be awarded a total amount of ?10,00,000/- towards prosthesis. The bills reveal that she had purchased prostheses costing around 25,000 and 45,000, respectively. This Court is inclined to grant ?10,00,000/-(including maintenance) towards purchase of prosthesis. On a perusal of the afore judgment it is seen that an amount of ?2,00,000/- lakhs fixed by the apex court for a single prosthesis was including the maintenance cost and hence 5 prosthesis will cost ?10,00,000/-. Hence, I find that the claimant in the present case is also entitled for the afore amount and hence I award an amount of ?10,00,000/- under the afore head. Loss of earnings:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has taken only a period of six months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Following are the injuries sustained by the appellant due to the accident: i) Near total amputation of right index finger ii) Amputation on right leg iii) Heal pad avulsion with exposed tendons iv) Fracture 1 st and 2 nd metacarpal right hand v) Fracture sacrum right, fracture bilateral supplemental and inferior pubic rami both side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of eight months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at ?8,000/- the total compensation payable under the said head would be ?64,000/- (8,000 x 8). The Tribunal had granted an amount of ?15,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ?49,000/- under the said head. Pain and sufferings:- Though the appellant claimed an amount of ?1,00,000/- towards the head pain and sufferings, the Tribunal had granted only an amount of ?50,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant as well as the year of accident, I find it appropriate to enhance the total compensation payable under the said head at ?75,000/-. Thus there will be an additional amount of ?25,000/- under the afore head. Loss of amenities :- On a perusal of the records it is seen that though an amount of ?1,00,000 was claimed under the head loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?25,000/- under this head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ?25,000/- under the afore head. Loss of amenities :- On a perusal of the records it is seen that though an amount of ?1,00,000 was claimed under the head loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?25,000/- under this head. Considering the loss of enjoyment in life, I find that the appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of ?50,000/- under the afore head. The tribunal had awarded an amount of ?25,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ?25,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Permanent disability:- Considering the nature of injuries as well as the certificate produced before this Court, I find it appropriate to fix the functional disability of the appellant as 50%. Since, the notional income after adding future prospects is fixed at ?11,200/- following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) , the compensation payable under the head permanent disability is re-calculated thus: ?12,09,600/- (11,200 x 12 x 18 x 50%). The tribunal had awarded an amount of ?2,70,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ?9,39,600/- under the head permanent disability. 6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under the other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. 7. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ?9,39,600/- under the head permanent disability. 6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under the other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- S. No Head of Claim Amount claimed Amount awarded by the Tribunal Modi?ed in appeal Total compensation 1 Loss of earnings 20,000 15,000 49,000 64,000 2 Transport to hospital 18,000 3,000 Not modi?ed 3,000 3 Extra nourishment 30,000 6,000 Not modi?ed 6,000 4 Damage to clothing and other articles 2,000 500 Not modi?ed 500 5 Dis?gurement to the hand 1,00,000 25,000 Not modi?ed 25,000 6 Treatment expenses 1,00,000 29,860 Not modi?ed 29,860 7 Pain and su?erings 1,00,000 50,000 25,000 75,000 8 Permanent disability and loss of future earning power 9,00,000 2,70,000 9,39,600 12,09,600 9 Loss of amenities of life 1,00,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 10 Maintenance of prostheses - - 10,00,000 10,00,000 TOTAL 12,70,000 4,24,360 20,38,600 24,62,960 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is awarded an additional compensation of ?20,38,600/- (Rupees twenty lakhs thirty eight thousand six hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appellant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 499 days in filing the appeal.