ORDER : SANJEET PUROHIT, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 06.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Jodhpur Metropolitan (“learned Tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 37/2013, (NCV No. 1489/14). By the award in question, a sum of Rs.10,47,442/- was awarded in favour of the claimant with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. BRIEF FACTS 2. The brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 21.01.2013, claimant- a truck driver holding a valid heavy-vehicle driving license met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. During treatment, his right leg was amputated. Consequently, a claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal claiming total compensation to the tune of Rs.64,90,000/-. 3. During the course of evidence, permanent disability certificate, showing disability percentage of 80% was placed on record. For establishing the income, claimant (A.W. 1) deposed that his monthly income was Rs.15,000/- per month and in support, the employer Mr. Ramswaroop (A.W. 2) also tendered his testimony stating that the claimant was working as a truck driver and was receiving monthly salary of Rs.15,000/. 4. The learned tribunal did not accept the evidence adduced by claimant relating to monthly income on the ground that the same was not supported by documentary evidence and took into account minimum wages to the tune of Rs.4342/- for calculating the quantum of compensation and also, admitted only 80% disability of the claimant. Consequently, tribunal vide award dated 06.09.2018 held that claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,47,442/- breakup of which is as follows: Head of Compensation Amount Pain, shock and suffering Rs.1,20,000/- Simple Injuries Rs.2,000/- Hospitalisation and expenses Rs.13,000/- Medical/treatment expenses Rs.12,144/- Loss of future earning capacity Rs.7,50,298/- Future medical treatment and prosthetic limb Rs.1,00,000/- Transportation and attendant charges Rs.50,000/- Total Compensation Rs.10,47,442/- 5. The appellant while accepting the compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal under other conventional heads has only challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under heads of loss of future earning capacity and simple injury. ARGUMENTS OF RIVAL PARTIES 6. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant’s income at Rs. 4,342/- per month, despite uncontroverted evidence on record, including the testimony of the employer Mr. ARGUMENTS OF RIVAL PARTIES 6. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant’s income at Rs. 4,342/- per month, despite uncontroverted evidence on record, including the testimony of the employer Mr. Ramswaroop (A.W.2), who categorically stated that the claimant was employed as a driver and was having monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. In the absence of any rebuttal to this evidence, the Tribunal was not justified in discarding the same, and resorting to minimum wages for determination of income. He further submitted that the refusal to accept the oral evidence merely in absence of documentary proof is against the settled position of law. The counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav , (2022) 1 SCC 198. Learned counsel for appellant also contended admittedly that claimant was working as a truck driver and thus, the claim that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month was wholly justified. 7. With regard to the assessment of permanent disability, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant, being a heavy vehicle driver, requires full use of both legs to perform his duties. In view of the amputation of his right leg resulting in complete functional incapacity to drive, the disability ought to have been assessed as 100% rather than 80%, as erroneously determined by the learned Tribunal. 8. Counsel for appellant-claimant also disputed the meagre compensation awarded under the head of simple injuries. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in computing the said compensation as Rs.2,000/- for two simple injuries, rather it ought to have been enhanced to Rs.4,000/-. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is well-reasoned and calls for no enhancement. He further contended that, in the absence of any documentary proof of income, the claimant’s assertion of earning Rs. 15,000/- per month could not be accepted on the basis of oral testimony alone. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent, relying on the disability certificate on record, submitted that the assessment of permanent disability at 80% by the learned Tribunal is correct and warrants no modification. He further contended that amputation of the claimant’s right leg does not render him completely incapable of pursuing his occupation. 11. Moreover, he submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of simple injuries is justified, and warrants no modification from this court. He further contended that amputation of the claimant’s right leg does not render him completely incapable of pursuing his occupation. 11. Moreover, he submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of simple injuries is justified, and warrants no modification from this court. ANALYSIS AND REASONING 12. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties at length and perused the documents on record of the case. 13. Upon consideration of the oral evidence on record, including the testimony of the claimant (A.W.1) and that of the employer, Mr. Ramswaroop (A.W.2), and in absence of any rebuttal thereto, this Court is of the view that the income of the deceased stands duly proved. Keeping in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and that strict rules of proof are not required to be applied in such proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. In Chandra (Supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that mere absence of documentary evidence does not justify the adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage which computing income. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein: “9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs 15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs 15,000 per month.” 14. In view of the principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the appellant- claimant is also entitled to 40% of the established income towards future prospects. 15. The Tribunal assessed the appellant’s permanent disability at 80%. However, as the claimant was employed as a heavy vehicle driver, the amputation of his right leg has rendered him incapable of performing his duties. In these circumstances, the functional disability ought to be assessed at 100% rather than 80%, as determined by the learned Tribunal. Reliance is placed on S. Ettiappan v. D. Kumar & Anr., SLP (C) NOS.15621/2025 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that while assessing the extent of disability suffered by a claimant, his subsequent functional disability should also be considered. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein: “7.1 While assessing the compensation in case of claims arising out of motor vehicle accident, it would be the functional disability which will have to be taken into consideration for award of future loss of income. In the instant case, though the doctors have assessed physical disability to whole body at 70%, the tribunal has substituted its view to that of the experts inspite of there being no contra-material available before it to arrive at a conclusion that functional disability being 50%. This Court has time and again stated that tribunal would not sit in the armchair of an expert and re-assess the disability, particularly, when there is clear evidence available. In the instant case, the disability assessment certificate Exhibit- C1 revealed that appellant had suffered 70% physical disability as certified by the Medical Board. There being no other evidence tendered by the insurer or the insured, the tribunal could not have substituted its view by assessing the disability at 50%. In the instant case, the disability assessment certificate Exhibit- C1 revealed that appellant had suffered 70% physical disability as certified by the Medical Board. There being no other evidence tendered by the insurer or the insured, the tribunal could not have substituted its view by assessing the disability at 50%. This erroneous view of the tribunal has been rightly set aside by the High Court. However, the High Court while reappreciating the evidence has restricted the whole-body disability at 70% on the basis of Medical Board Certificate (Ex. C-1) without noticing the fact that on account of said disability suffered by the claimant, his functional disability would be 100%. It is not in dispute that appellant was working as a loader who used to discharge his duties of loading and unloading vegetables into the vehicles. This physical or manual activity would require support of both legs or in other words claimant is required to use both the legs for discharging his duties as a loader. By virtue of amputation of his right leg below the knee, he has become immobile or in other words, he is not in a position to discharge his daily routine work as a loader. It is not the case of insurer or insured that claimant was carrying on any other avocation and as such the disability of 70% suffered would not come in the way of his earning. To earn his bread, he had to work by loading or unloading vegetable into the vehicle which was the only avocation he was carrying on. Now by virtue of amputation of his leg below the knee appellant is not only unable to work as a loader but even unable to stand without support. As such the functional disability requires to be considered at 100% and not 70% as held by High Court.” 16. In addition, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal under the head of simple injuries also warrants enhancement by a sum of Rs.2,000/-. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court feels that amount awarded by Tribunal requires enhancement under the heads of loss of future earning capacity and simple injuries. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal is partly modified to the extent that Claimant’s monthly income is taken to be Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal is partly modified to the extent that Claimant’s monthly income is taken to be Rs.10,000/-. Consequently, the loss of income shall be computed as per the established judicial formula as: (10,000 X 12 X 18) + 40% of the future prospects = Rs.30,24,000/-. Appellant-claimant is entitled to the following compensation: HEADS OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT (in Rupees) Loss of future earning capacity (10,000 X 12 X 18) + 40% of the established income towards future prospects Rs.30,24,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs.1,20,000/- Simple injuries 1000 X 2 Rs.4,000/- Hospitalisation expenses 500 X 26 Rs.13,000/- Medical/treatment expenses Rs.12,144/- Future medical treatment and prosthetic limb Rs.1,00,000/- Transportation and attendant charges Rs.50,000/- Total Compensation: Rs.33,23,144/- 17. The enhanced amount shall be disbursed by respondents within a period of three months. It shall carry interest @9% per annum payable from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 21.01.2013. Amount already deposited shall be adjusted with the award enhanced by this court. 18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 19. No order as to costs.