JUDGMENT : B.S. BHANUMATHI, J. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short "M.V. Act?) against the award and decree dated 08.01.2004 in M.V.O.P.No.920 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- District Judge, Guntur. 02. The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 03. Initially, the claimant No.1 filed petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Pending adjudication of the claim petition, since he died, his legal representatives who are his wife, children and mother were brought on record as the claimants No.2 to 5. 04. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: a) While the claimant No.1 was going on his T.V.S. Moped towards Bandar Road, a lorry bearing No.ABK-1096 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed against his motor vehicle, as a result of which he received crush injury to his right leg. He was, admitted in a private hospital. Later, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Guntur where he was treated as in-patient for one month. His right leg was amputated up to knee. A case in crime No.134 of 1994 was registered in the IV Town Traffic Police Station, Vijayawada. He was aged 32 years and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by doing wood centring work in building construction. He spent Rs.10,000/- for medicines, special diet and attendant charges. b) The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. c) The respondent No.2 filed a written statement opposing the claim and denying all the allegations. It was further contended that the vehicle insured by the respondent No.2 had never been involved in the accident and moreover, the driver of the said vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of the accident; that the deceased himself had been guilty of contributory negligence; and that the petition was bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the scooter. 05. On behalf of the claimants, the claimant No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1, Ch. Prabhudas was examined as P.W.2 and Dr.S.S.V. Ramana was examined as P.W.3 and following documents were marked as evidence: Ex.A1 C.C. of F.I.R. in Crime No.134/99 of IV Traffic Police Station, Vijayawada. 05. On behalf of the claimants, the claimant No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1, Ch. Prabhudas was examined as P.W.2 and Dr.S.S.V. Ramana was examined as P.W.3 and following documents were marked as evidence: Ex.A1 C.C. of F.I.R. in Crime No.134/99 of IV Traffic Police Station, Vijayawada. Ex.A2 C.C. of charge sheet in C.C.No.117 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Additional Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Ex.A3 C.C. of M.V.I.'s report. Ex.A4 C.C. of accident report. Ex.A5 O.P. Chit issued by G.G.H., Guntur. Ex.X1 Case sheet of B. Ravi maintained by G.G.H., Guntur. 06. The respondents neither examined any witness nor submitted any document as evidence. 07. The Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal further observed that there is no evidence to the effect that the deceased / claimant No.1 died of injuries suffered in the accident and therefore, the amount of compensation was restricted to the amount of compensation payable for injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses and other expenses for transportation till his death. It awarded Rs.9,600/- for loss of earnings and Rs.6,000/- for pain and suffering for a period of six months. Thus, in total, Rs.25,600/- was granted with proportionate costs payable by the respondents No.1 and 2 with joint and several liabilities along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 08. Aggrieved by the award, the claimants preferred this appeal. 09. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence and that the amount of compensation awarded is very low. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the award does not require any interference as there was no proof that the deceased died of the injuries and the quantum of compensation is adequate basing on the evidence placed before the Tribunal. 11. Since the respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, further notice to the respondent No.1 was dispensed with under the proviso to under Order XLI, Rule 14(1) C.P.C. added by an amendment by the State of Andhra Pradesh. 12. The accident occurred on 12.09.1999, whereas the deceased died subsequently on 17.01.2001. However, no evidence was placed to establish that the deceased died of the injuries suffered in the accident. 12. The accident occurred on 12.09.1999, whereas the deceased died subsequently on 17.01.2001. However, no evidence was placed to establish that the deceased died of the injuries suffered in the accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal to that effect does not require any interference. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded for the injuries suffered by the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation as only Rs.9,600/- was granted towards loss of earnings. It is settled law that compensation for permanent disability shall be assessed as per the guidelines reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , which reads as follows: “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 the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the 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 to 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.” 13. In the present case, since the claimant worked as a mason and his leg was amputated up to knee which is an undisputed fact, he would suffer at least 80% to 90% of loss of income, as he could not attend the same kind of work he used to before the accident. May be with amputated leg, he could earn some amount by other means. Therefore, the physical disability cannot be taken as 100% loss of earning capacity. May be with amputated leg, he could earn some amount by other means. Therefore, the physical disability cannot be taken as 100% loss of earning capacity. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be assessed at 90%. 14. The claimants themselves mentioned the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-. As a mason, the said amount can be reasonably taken as income per month on an average, though actual income may vary from month to month depending on the number of working days. If the loss of income is taken at 90%, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,800/- per month. The same shall be multiplied by 12 and the multiplier applicable to his age. Since the claimant was aged about 32 years, the relevant multiplier is 16. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.3,45,600/- (1800x12x16) is calculated. The Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 rd of the amount under this head towards personal expenses as though the amount of compensation awarded is for death. 15. The amount of compensation awarded towards pain and suffering can be enhanced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.15,000/- . Since he died pending the claim petition, compensation under the other heads is not required. Compensation granted for medical and other expenses (i.e., Rs.10,000/- ) is held sufficient. 16. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,70,600/-. Though the claim petition was filed only for Rs.2,50,000/-, since the Tribunal shall award just and reasonable compensation irrespective of the amount claimed, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,70,600/- (t hree lakh seventy thousand six hundred rupees only). 17. Since the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was not challenged by the respondents, it remains intact. 18. Amount of costs payable is proportionate to the amount of compensation. 19. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.25,600/- to Rs.3,70,600/- (t hree lakh seventy thousand six hundred rupees only) with proportionate costs. The rate and period of interest remain the same. The amount already paid, if any, as per the award passed by the Tribunal shall be adjusted against the principal, interest and costs due as on the date of such payment. 20. The claimants shall pay additional Court fee on Rs.1,20,600/-. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.