JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 09.09.2016 in O.P.(MV) No.204 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A. No. 392 of 2017 has been filed by the claimant in the O.P, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the finding of 70% contributory negligence against the claimant, while M.A.C.A. No. 730 of 2017 has been filed by the 3rd respondent, the insurance company challenging the finding of 30% negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, driver of the lorry. 2. According to the claimants, on 09.04.2012 at about 06.00 pm, while the petitioner was riding his autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-8-G-4771, through the Panchayat road, a mini lorry/tempo bearing registration No.KL-9-R-3076 driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner applied sudden brake and scraped on the right side of the autorickshaw. As a result, the autorickshaw got stuck between an electric post and the mini lorry, causing the amputation of his leg below the knee. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ?12,25,000/- limited to ?7,00,000/-. 3. The first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending mini lorry respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent, insurer, filed a written statement admitting the policy and contended that no damage was caused to the vehicle. Before the tribunal, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A14 and Ext.B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ?2,41,860/- (30% of 8,06,200/-) as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer. Challenging the negligence found against the 2nd respondent, the insurer has come up in appeal and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and contributory negligence found, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. Challenging the negligence found against the 2nd respondent, the insurer has come up in appeal and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and contributory negligence found, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. The insurer and the claimants challenged the quantum of compensation awarded under the following heads:- Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that though the claimant was an autorickshaw driver and had claimed a monthly income of ?10,000/-, the Tribunal had taken his income as only ?6,000/- per month. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] , the notional monthly income of a coolie during the year 2012 is fixed at ?8,500/-. Considering the fact that the accident occurred while he was riding the autorickshaw, and since he was the driver thereof, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate, to re-fix his monthly income at ?10,000/-. Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal had reckoned only a period of six months for awarding compensation under the aforesaid head. Considering Ext.A8 discharge summary that his left leg was subsequently amputated below the knee, I find that a period of ten months is appropriate to be taken into account for awarding compensation under the said head. Therefore the claimant is entitled to get a total compensation of ?1,00,000/- (10,000x10) under the afore head. However, the tribunal has awarded an amount of ?36,000/- towards loss of earnings. After deducting the said amount, the claimant will be entitled for ? 64,000/- as additional compensation under the head, loss of earnings. Compensation for loss of disability :- The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the claimant had appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board has issued a disability certificate on 11.03.2024 assessing the percentage of disability as 60%. As per the Workmen’s Compensation Act , the percentage of loss of earning capacity for an amputation below the knee is 50%. As per the Workmen’s Compensation Act , the percentage of loss of earning capacity for an amputation below the knee is 50%. However, since the Medical Board has assessed the percentage of disability as 60%, I am inclined to take the functional disability of the petitioner as 60%. Since the percentage of functional disability is assessed at 60%, as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], future prospects is to be added to the income now fixed by this Court. As the appellant was aged 44 years at the time of the accident, by adding 25% towards future prospects to the income now fixed, the income will be ?12,500/- (10,000+2,500). Accordingly, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi [supra] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)] , compensation under the afore head is recalculated thus : ?12,60,000/- (12,500x12x14x60/100). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ?5,04,000/- under the afore head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ? 7,56,000/- under the said head. Pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?75,000/- under the head, pain and sufferings, which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that his left leg below the knee was amputated, I award a total amount of ?1,00,000/- under the said head. Therefore, there will be an additional amount of ? 25,000/- under the afore head. Loss of amenities :- The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?25,000/- under the head, loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that his left leg below the knee was amputated, I award a total amount of ?1,00,000/- under the said head. Therefore, there will be an additional amount of ? 75,000/- under the afore head. Maintenance of Prosthesis :- The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant is using a prosthesis. However, no document has been produced to prove that he had purchased the same. On a perusal of the award it is seen that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards purchase of prosthesis. Following the judgment of the apex court in Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Suraj Kumar and Ors. However, no document has been produced to prove that he had purchased the same. On a perusal of the award it is seen that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards purchase of prosthesis. Following 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 ?10 lakhs for the prosthetic limbs for an injured person who was aged 22 years. It was held that a prosthetic limb, would in any event cost approximately ?2 lakhs and it would have to be changed in every five years and even on a conservative estimate, the victim would require the change of at least five prosthetic limbs in his lifetime considering his age. On a perusal of the afore judgment it is seen that an amount of ?2,00,000/- fixed by the apex court for a single prosthesis was including the maintenance cost and hence 5 prosthesis will cost ?10,00,000/-. In this case, the claimant is aged 44 years, and hence I find that he is entitled to three prosthetic limbs. Accordingly, I award a sum of ? 6,00,000/- (?2,00,000 x 3) under the said head. 5. Though the claimant 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. Since the appeal is of the year 2017, I find it appropriate to fix the interest @8% per annum on the enhanced amount. 6. The claimant as well as the insurance company challenged the finding of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, who was the driver of the autorickshaw as well as the driver of the mini lorry, which was insured with the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.730 of 2017. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that as per the police charge sheet, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw driven by the claimant himself. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that as per the police charge sheet, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw driven by the claimant himself. It is also submitted that the evidence adduced in this case also does not show that the mini lorry insured with the insurer was not involved in the alleged accident and the driver of the autorickshaw on seeing the mini lorry immediately applied the brake and thereupon, the autorickshaw hit against the compound wall and thus, the claimant sustained injuries. It was also argued that in Ext.A6 wound certificate, it is stated by the claimant that while driving the autorickshaw, when giving side to another vehicle, his left leg got trapped between a wall and auto. It is also their case that Ext.A4 is the AMVI report of the autorickshaw and in the award, it is stated that the AMVI report of the mini lorry was not produced by the claimant and the third respondent/insurance company had produced the same, which does not reveal any damage sustained to the mini lorry. It is argued that the tribunal is not justified in finding the contributory negligence at 30% on the part of the driver of the mini lorry. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the mini lorry came at a terrific speed and applied sudden brake and scraped on the side of the auto as a result of which the said autorickshaw jammed between the wall and mini lorry. The claimant submitted that his knee joint got jammed in between the wall and the autorickshaw resulting in severe injury and his leg was amputated below the knee. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that evidence of PW2 also supports the claim of PW1. It is also submitted that while submitting the final report, the Police was also not very sure about the direction in which the mini lorry was going and there was a mistake in the report as well. He also submitted that the passenger in the autorickshaw was not available at the time of taking evidence since he was working abroad. However, it is stated that the passenger in the autorickshaw is now available to give evidence and the appellant/claimant seeks for one more opportunity to adduce evidence before the tribunal. 9. He also submitted that the passenger in the autorickshaw was not available at the time of taking evidence since he was working abroad. However, it is stated that the passenger in the autorickshaw is now available to give evidence and the appellant/claimant seeks for one more opportunity to adduce evidence before the tribunal. 9. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. 10. The fact that the autorickshaw met with an accident and the left leg of the claimant was amputated is not in dispute. The issue whether the mini lorry, which was moving in the opposite direction, scraped on the right side of the auto, which was moving in the opposite direction and whether that is the reason for the accident, could not be effectively proved by the claimant. However, PW2 the independent witness has stated in the proof affidavit that the claimant sustained injuries, when his auto was jammed between the mini lorry and a compound wall and during cross- examination, he stated that he had seen the incident while going for a bath in the temple pond and he did not notice the number of the autorickshaw driven by the claimant. 11. Admittedly, the important witness in this case is the passenger in the autorickshaw. The tribunal has found contributory negligence in the ratio 70:30 on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw and the driver of the mini lorry. Admittedly, the claimant has sustained serious injuries in the accident by losing his left leg below the knee. Considering the afore facts, I find that one more opportunity has to be given to the claimant to raise his contention and to adduce evidence regarding the finding of contributory negligence by the tribunal. Therefore, the issue regarding the contributory negligence by the tribunal is set aside. 12. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl. Considering the afore facts, I find that one more opportunity has to be given to the claimant to raise his contention and to adduce evidence regarding the finding of contributory negligence by the tribunal. Therefore, the issue regarding the contributory negligence by the tribunal is set aside. 12. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl. No Head of Claim Amount claimed Amount awarded by the tribunal Modified in appeal Total compensatio n 1 Loss of earnings 1,00,000 36,000 64,000 1,00,000 2 Transportation expenses 20,000 8,000 (not modified) 8,000 3 Damage to clothings 5,000 1,000 (not modified) 1,000 4 Extra nourishment Nil 2,500 (not modified) 2,500 5 Medical expenses 3,00,000 1,43,300 (not modified) 1,43,300 6 Attendant expenses Nil 11,400 (not modified) 11,400 7 Pain and sufferings 1,00,000 75,000 25,000 1,00,000 8 Permanent disability 3,00,000 5,04,000 7,56,000 12,60,000 9 Loss of amenities 2,00,000 25,000 75,000 1,00,000 10 Maintenance of prosthesis Nil Nil 6,00,000 6,00,000 TOTAL 12,25,000 limited to 7,00,000 8,06,200 15,20,000 23,26,200 Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows:- 1. The issue regarding the finding of contributory negligence at the ratio of 70:30 on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw and the driver of the mini lorry by the tribunal is hereby set aside. 2. The matter is remanded back to the MACT, Irinjalakuda only for consideration of the issue regarding contributory negligence. 3. The claimant is awarded an additional compensation of ? 15,20,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs twenty thousand only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. After deciding the issue regarding the negligence aspect, the tribunal shall fix the liability regarding the payment of the amount due to the claimant. 4. Parties will be at liberty to adduce fresh evidence either oral or documentary before the tribunal. Both parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 01.11.2025. 5. The tribunal shall consider and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. 6. It is made clear that the tribunal need not revisit the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant.