( 1 ) THIS is a claimant's appeal against the judgment and award dated 1. 3. 1997 passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal, Bangalore city in m. v. c. No. 45 of 1995.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the claimant-appellant, on 16. 3. 1994 at 3 p. m. he was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing No. Ka-02-5824 on tumkur-Bangalore road; that when the autorickshaw was taking a turn towards Bangalore on national highway No. 4 near batawadi, lorry bearing No. Tn-29-y-2732 came from the opposite direction being driven in a negligent manner, at a high speed and dashed against the autorickshaw; and that as a result of such accident the claimant was thrown out of the autoriskshaw and the lorry ran over his left leg and his left lower limb was crushed. As a consequence the left leg was amputated below knee. He, therefore, filed m. v. c. No. 45 of 1995 claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 contending that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of the drivers of the lorry and autorickshaw.

( 3 ) THE respondent nos. 1 and 2 are respectively the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No. Tn-29-y-2732. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 are respectively the owner and insurer of the autorickshaw bearing No. Ka-02-5824. The petition was resisted by the respondent nos. 2 and 4. The respondent nos. 1 and 3 did not contest the petition.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the tribunal: (1) whether the petitioner proves the accident that took place on Bangalore- tumkur road near batawadi at 3 p. m. on 16. 3. 1994 was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. Tn-29-y-2732 and the autorickshaw bearing No. Ka-02-5824 by the respective drivers? (2) whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries and he is entitled to compensation as prayed for? (3) whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the petition? (4) to what order?the claimant examined himself as pw 1 and the doctor who treated him as pw 2. He marked exhs. P-1 to p-52. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was let in.

( 5 ) AFTER considering the evidence, the tribunal, by judgment and award dated 1. 3. 1997 allowed the petition in part. It held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and the autorickshaw by the respective drivers and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 50 per cent and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the other 50 per cent of the compensation awarded. The tribunal awarded Rs. 2,36,000 as compensation to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The said amount has been awarded under the following heads: (1) for injuries, pain and suffering. Rs. 1,00,000 (2) loss of marital prospects/loss of amenities. Rs. 20,000 (3) medical expenses (present and future) nourishing food, attendant's charges and conveyance. Rs. 20,000 (4) loss of earnings during the period of treatment (at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month for 12 months ). Rs. 12,000 (5) loss of future earnings (at the rate of Rs. 500 per month by applying a multiplier of 14 ). Rs. 84,000

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved, the claimant has filed this appeal contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate. As this is a claimant's appeal, the finding in regard to negligence is not assailed and the same has become final. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded is inadequate and whether it should be increased.

( 7 ) THE claimant was aged 26 years at the time of the accident. According to claimant, before the accident he was working as a loader, earning Rs. 2,000 p. m. ; and as a result of the amputation, he can no longer do any kind of work and has lost his earning capacity and has become a burden on his family. His marital prospects are destroyed and he cannot have any social life nor lead any normal life. He has to undergo pain