JUDGMENT : V. SUJATHA, J. The present civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the order and decree dated 09.01.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.483 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge's Court, Kurnool. By the said order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,16,650/- to the petitioner/claimant, as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 19.04.2013. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner/claimant has preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The petitioner was 38 years old and working as a labourer, attending to loading and unloading work on the tractor of respondent No.1, and earning Rs.6,000/- per month as on the date of incident. On the fateful day i.e., on 19.04.2013, he was travelling in the tractor-tailor bearing registration No.AP 21 Y 7188/7189 belonging to respondent No.1 to load stones at Utkoor quarry and at about 10.30 a.m., when the tractor was reaching near the quarry, the driver of the same drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the vehicle lost control and fell into a ditch and the petitioner's right leg was crushed in the hydraulic of the said tractor. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Renuka Multi Specialty Hospital, N.R.Peta, Kurnool for treatment, where his right leg was amputated below the knee joint and thereafter, he was discharged on 27.04.2013. b) It was contended by the petitioner that he incurred Rs.1,00,000/- for medical and attendant expenses and was still taking treatment as an out- patient. He filed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2/owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively, initially for a compensation of Rs.11,70,000/-, but subsequently, restricted the claim to Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.2/insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the petitioner. He filed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2/owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively, initially for a compensation of Rs.11,70,000/-, but subsequently, restricted the claim to Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.2/insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner has to prove that the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer driver and that the driver had a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It was further contended that because of the petitioner's negligence, the accident took place and that the amount claimed was excessive. Further, as the petitioner was an employee under respondent No.1, he ought to have filed a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but not under Motor Vehicles Act. The insurer, therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident dated 19.04.2013, took place because of negligence on the part of the driver of Tractor-trailer bearing Nos.AP 21 Y 7188/7189, as stated in the petition? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined one Dr. J Raghunatha Reddy, Medical Officer, as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked. On behalf of the 2 nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against the respondents, by awarding a total compensation of Rs.4,16,650/- to the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into the Court. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Further, the time to deposit the compensation amount was fixed as one month and on deposit, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the entire amount. 9. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 10. Further, the time to deposit the compensation amount was fixed as one month and on deposit, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the entire amount. 9. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 10. During pendency of this MACMA, the appellant preferred I.A.No.2 of 2019 seeking amendment of claim petition by enhancing the claim amount to Rs.10,80,000/- from Rs.6,00,000/- with consequential permission to pay the additional court fee, on the ground that he was advised that he is entitled to more compensation than what has been claimed. Considering the same, the said application has been allowed, permitting the amendment sought for in respect of the claim amount and directing the petitioner to pay the additional court fee. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant/ petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident, resulting in amputation of his right leg below the knee, due to which he is unable to perform the duties of loading and unloading labourer on tractor and thus, it should be treated as 100% functional disability and the loss of future earnings ought to have been calculated by treating the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.4,500/- per month, but the Tribunal erred in granting only Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings. He further contends that the Tribunal can award the compensation in excess of what is claimed, if it is just and proper in the circumstances of the case, but the Tribunal erred in not exercising such discretion vested in it. He, therefore, prays to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, or requires enhancement in this appeal; if so, to what extent?” POINT 14. There is no dispute with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the absence of any challenge thereto, the said finding, which is well-founded on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, needs no interference. There is no dispute with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the absence of any challenge thereto, the said finding, which is well-founded on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, needs no interference. In view of the contentions raised in the present appeal, the only issue that requires consideration is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. The petitioner claimed to have been working as a labourer engaged in loading and unloading work on a tractor and earning Rs.6,000/- per month as on the date of accident. However, a perusal of the impugned order would reveal that no substantial evidence was placed on record to establish the actual earnings of the petitioner. In view of the same, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to fix the notional income of the petitioner, as a labourer, at Rs.4,500/- per month, for the purpose of computation of loss of earnings. Thus, the annual income of the petitioner comes to Rs.54,000/- (Rupees 4,500/- x 12). 16. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.W.2-doctor, who treated the petitioner, coupled with Ex.A8-Disability Certificate, opined that the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner can be assessed at 70%. However, it is to be noted that the medical evidence on record, more particularly, Exs.X1 and X2-case sheets of the petitioner would establish that the right leg of the petitioner was amputated below the knee. According to the petitioner, he used to work as a labourer attending to loading and unloading work on tractor. There can be no doubt that due to the amputation of limb, the petitioner's ability to perform manual labour works, which involve loading and unloading activities, would be significantly impaired, thereby severely affecting his earning capacity. 17. According to the petitioner, he used to work as a labourer attending to loading and unloading work on tractor. There can be no doubt that due to the amputation of limb, the petitioner's ability to perform manual labour works, which involve loading and unloading activities, would be significantly impaired, thereby severely affecting his earning capacity. 17. In Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. , [ (2020) 1 SCC 796 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the claim petition of an injured whose right leg got permanently injured resulting in complete disability to continue his occupation as a driver, having referred to the earlier decisions on the aspect of functional disability and held that the functional disability suffered by the claimant therein should be assessed as 100%, as he had lost the ability to work as a driver and the prospect of securing any other manual labour job was also not possible. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under : “12. In K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 518 : (2008) 2 SCC (L & S) 733 this Court examined the loss of earning capacity in the case of a tanker driver who had met with an accident, and lost one of his legs due to amputation. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation assessed the functional disability of the tanker driver as 100% and awarded compensation on that basis. The High Court, however, referred to Schedule I to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and held that loss of a leg on amputation resulted in only 60% loss of earning capacity. This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, and held that since the workman could no longer earn his living as a tanker driver due to loss of one leg, the functional disability had to be assessed as 100%. 13. In S. Suresh v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., [United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. K Janardhan, 2001 SCC OnLine Kar 841] this Court held that : (SCC p. 780, para 9) “9. … We are of the opinion that on account of amputation of his right leg below knee, he is rendered unfit for the work of a driver, which he was performing at the time of the accident resulting in the said disablement. … We are of the opinion that on account of amputation of his right leg below knee, he is rendered unfit for the work of a driver, which he was performing at the time of the accident resulting in the said disablement. Therefore, he has lost 100% of his earning capacity as a lorry driver, more so, when he is disqualified from even getting a driving license under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” (emphasis supplied) 14. The aforesaid judgments are instructive for assessing the compensation payable to the appellant in the present case. As a consequence of the accident, the appellant has been incapacitated for life, since he can walk only with the help of a walking stick. He has lost the ability to work as a driver, as he would be disqualified from even getting a driving license. The prospect of securing any other manual labour job is not possible, since he would require the assistance of a person to ensure his mobility and manage his discomfort. As a consequence, the functional disability suffered by the appellant must be assessed as 100%.” 18. In the instant case also, as noted above, the petitioner's right leg was amputated below the knee. It is, thus, obvious that he would not be able to perform the duties of a labourer or engage in the activities of loading and unloading goods from tractor, which he used to do prior to the accident. In view of the same, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's functional disability should be assessed at 100% for the purpose of determining loss of earning capacity, which would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the entire annual income of Rs.54,000/- is taken into consideration for the purpose of loss of future earnings. The petitioner was aged 38 years as on the date of accident, as recorded in Ex.A3-Wound Certificate and other medical records, and the relevant multiplier applicable to the said age is 15', in terms of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ 2017 ACJ 2700 ] . Accordingly, by applying the relevant multiplier of 15', the loss of future earnings would come to Rs.8,10,000/- (Rs.54,000/- x 15). 19. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses i.e., to arrange an artificial limb. Accordingly, by applying the relevant multiplier of 15', the loss of future earnings would come to Rs.8,10,000/- (Rs.54,000/- x 15). 19. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses i.e., to arrange an artificial limb. However, considering the fact that upon fixation of artificial limb, it would require regular periodical repairs and maintenance, this Court deems it appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, the total amount granted under the said head is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. 20. With regard to other amounts granted by the Tribunal under various heads, i.e., Rs.35,646/- towards 'medical expenses' incurred by the petitioner, as supported by Ex.A6- medical bills, Rs.6,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and sufferance', Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'loss of future amenities', this Court finds that the said amounts are just and reasonable and no interference is warranted therewith. 21. Thus, the amounts granted under the heads 'loss of future earnings' and 'future medical expenses' are enhanced by this Court, while the amounts granted under the remaining heads stood confirmed. To sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of future earnings Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.8,10,000/- Future Medical Expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/- Pain & sufferance Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Medical expenses Rs.35,646/- Rs.35,646/- Attendant charges Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,000/- Loss of future amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.4,16,646/- Rounded off to Rs.4,16,650/- Rs.10,51,646/- 22. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 09.01.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.483 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge's Court, Kurnool, is hereby modified by enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellant/petitioner from Rs.4,16,650/- to Rs.10,51,646/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. It is made clear that the appellant/petitioner shall pay the additional court fee, as directed while allowing the amendment petition, before drafting the decree. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.