The court established that the claimant's functional disability should be assessed at 90% due to amputation, and his age fixed at 22 years, applying a multiplier of 18 for compensation calculation.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 14th October, 2022 in First Appeal from Order No.210 of 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which, in turn, was preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 20th November, 2019 passed in M.A.C.P No.188 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 3rd April, 2018, the claimant-appellant, aged 23 years, was going to his home on his motorcycle bearing No.UP-13Y-1838, about 1.30 pm near the bus stand at village Gora Machhia, the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1PB-9197 coming from the wrong side of the road, driving rashly and negligently, dashed into the claimant- appellant from the front due to which he suffered serious injury, as the driver of the offending vehicle took out the wheel of the bus from the right leg and right hand of the claimant-appellant. He was taken to Medical College, Jhansi. During the treatment, an injury was suffered by him, resulting in the amputation of his right leg above the knee.

4. In connection with this incident, on 6th April, 2018, the father of the Claimant-Appellant lodged an FIR No.57/2018, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle at Bandagon Police Station.

5. The claimant-appellant filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.67,00,000/- plus cost and interest, submitting therein that he earns Rs.10,000/- per month by running a coaching centre for students of classes 9th and 10th and also works as an accountant at Bablu Ghat of M/s. Vikram Construction Company for Rs.15,000/- per month, however, as a result of the injury suffered, it has become difficult for him to perform his day-to-day activities.

6. The Tribunal, by its order, held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company was directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,70,000/- at the rate of 6% interest, considering the notional income as Rs.6,000/- per month and fixed the disability of the Claimant-Appellant to be at 50%.

7. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant-Appellant approached the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal had not appropriately considered the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and future prospects were also not awarded as per the settled principles of law.

8. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, enhanced the award in favour of the Claimant-Appellant by granting Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering alongwith granting 40% under the head of future prospects.

9. Yet dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. The grounds of challenge are that the Courts below have incorrectly assessed the monthly income. He holds a three three-year Diploma Course in Mechanical Engineering and should be treated at par with a skilled labourer for the purposes of his notional income. Furthermore, both Courts have failed to assess his functional disability as 90% since, due to his amputation, he is unable to perform daily tasks. Lastly, his age was also wrongly considered as 26, whereas it should have been 22 years as per evidence on record.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 3 - the insurer has not entered appearance. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the functional disability suffered by him and also the determination of his age. The Claimant-Appellant is not salaried, but is self-employed running and managing his own business. For the Appellant to be able to effecti