ORDER Time taken for disposal of the claim petition Time taken for disposal of appeal by the High Court Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court 8 years 3 months 7 months 12 months 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th August, 2023 in Misc. Appeal No.410 of 2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, which, in turn, was preferred against the judgment and order dated 27th October, 2022 passed in Claim Case No.1100258 of 2014 by the 11th Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 23rd March, 2014, the offending vehicle bearing No.MP-09-CM-2227, while coming from the Gurudwara side, rashly and negligently dashed into the claimant-appellant, who was standing near the service lane of the road at ABMEG Colony, Indore, near Gurudwara. Upon collision, he was taken to Bombay Hospital, Indore, where he was treated from 24th March, 2014 to 28th March, 2014. As a result of the accident, the claimant-appellant sustained injuries on the right side of the body, due to which his right arm was completely mutilated, and his right leg was amputated above the knee, near the thigh. 4. In connection with this incident, a report of the accident was lodged against one Amit (Respondent No.2), the driver of the offending vehicle at Police Station, MIG Colony, Indore. 5. The claimant-appellant filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-plus cost and interest, submitting therein that he became permanently incapable of performing his duties as Area Sales Manager and Hotel Manager, as he was facing problem in daily tasks. 6. The Tribunal, by its order, held that the insurance company was liable to pay an amount of Rs.17,65,813/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The Tribunal considered the permanent disability suffered by the appellant to be 70% and took his salary to be Rs.17,500/- per month on the basis of the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2011-12. A presumption was drawn by the Tribunal against Respondent No.2 to be driving rashly and negligently as the chargesheet stood filed and in terms of the exposition laid down in Ashok Bhamore vs. Rakesh and Ors. A presumption was drawn by the Tribunal against Respondent No.2 to be driving rashly and negligently as the chargesheet stood filed and in terms of the exposition laid down in Ashok Bhamore vs. Rakesh and Ors. by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 7. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant-appellant filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal had not appropriately considered the permanent disability due to the injury suffered and future prospects were also not awarded as per the settled principle of law in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Additionally, the amounts awarded under the heads - special diet; attendant; and transportation, are on the lower side. 8. The High Court, vide its impugned order, enhanced the amount awarded to the claimant-appellant with an additional sum of Rs.4,87,750/- by granting 25% of the amount under the head future prospects and increasing the percentage of disability suffered to 54% based on the evidence on record. 9. As such, the compensation awarded by the High Court was as under: CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION IMAGE 10. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant is now before us. The significant points of challenge taken are that the monthly income of Rs.17,500/- was wrongly assessed by the Tribunal as well as the High Court. The claimant submits that he earns a total of Rs.25,000/- per month; wherein, Rs.16,500/- as Area Sales Manager of Ishguru Hitech Natural Care Products and that Rs.7,500/- while working as a part-time Manager in Srishti Hotel. Furthermore, the High Court wrongly considered the future prospects to be 25%, whereas it should have been 40%. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the loss of the earnings suffered due to disability. This Court, in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , had expounded that the impact of permanent disability on the loss of earning capacity depends on the nature of the profession, age, occupation or job and other factors. 12. Adverting to the case at hand, the appellant was 46 years of age at the time of the incident and was in two jobs, one as a Sales Manager and the other as a Hotel Manager. 12. Adverting to the case at hand, the appellant was 46 years of age at the time of the incident and was in two jobs, one as a Sales Manager and the other as a Hotel Manager. In our careful consideration, the amputation of the right leg and mutilation of the right hand significantly impacts the ability of a person to carry out the same profession, as it requires physical presence and movement. It is apparent, that the appellant can no longer work in the same profession or occupation. This Court in Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar and Ors., (2012) 2 SCC 267 , while observing the serious impact caused by permanent disability, enhanced the loss of earning capacity as a result of disability to 100% from 50%. Similarly, we deem it appropriate to enhance the degree of disability from 54% to 100%. 13. As a result of the discussion above, the compensation now payable to the claimant-appellant is itemized as under: FINAL COMPENSATION IMAGE Thus, the difference in compensation is as under: MACT High Court This Court Rs.17,65,813/- Rs. 22,53,563/- Rs.28,93,494/- 14. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned Award dated 27th October, 2022 passed in Claim Case No.1100258 of 2014 by the 11th Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, as modified in terms of the impugned order, stands further modified in terms of the above. Computation of interest would remain the same. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.