JUDGMENT

Sunil K. Kotwal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded in MACP No. 635 of 2005 which awarded total compensation of Rs. 11,77,061/- with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5%. Appellant is the original claimant in above said injury claim petition. Respondent No. 1 is owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No. 2 is the insurer.

2. Facts leading to institution of this appeal are that on 30/7/2005 the claimant who was in State service as Police Constable, was proceeding towards Bhokar Phata by his motorcycle No. MH-26-J-5365, at about 8.40 p.m. On Ardhapur - Nanded road the offending truck bearing registration No. MH-44-6127 came from the back side and the truck gave dash to the motorcycle of the claimant from its back side. In that accident, both leg bones of the claimant were crushed, which resulted into amputation of his both legs above the knee joint. Therefore, claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "MV Act") was filed against the respondents.

3. Heard Shri A.D. Hande, learned counsel for appellant and Shri A.N. Ambhore, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while assessing the compensation the learned Tribunal considered the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 4,697/- though the total salary of the claimant is Rs. 7,311/- per month. He submits that considering the amputation of both legs of the claimant, more compensation should have been awarded for the loss of future income, considering the factor that due to permanent disability, the future prospect of the appellant/claimant is totally ruined.

4. His next submission is that though due to amputation of both legs 100% functional disability has been resulted. The learned Tribunal did not award compensation under the head of loss of amenities as well as loss of expectation of life. He has also pointed out that under the head of attendance charges meager compensation is awarded. He submits that even interest is not awarded at the rate of 9% per annum which is appropriate in such cases.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that due to amputation of leg, the petitioner has not lost his service, but only table work is given to him in the same scale which was at the time of accident. He submits that the Tribunal rightly considered deductions from the salary of claimant while assessing the monthly pay. However, he fairly concedes that reasonable compensation be awarded for the loss of amenities and future expectation of life.

6. In the case at hand, after going through the judgment passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that the Tribunal considered the loss of income in proportion with percentage of permanent disability. However, law regarding assessment of compensation in the injury claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, is settled by the Apex Court long back in the case "Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar and another" [2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 569]. In this case, the Apex Court held that

"while assessing the assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability, the loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability would not be in proportion to the percentage of permanent disability. The Tribunal has to assess the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of permanent disability on the basis of evidence on record. The Tribunal has to determine whether such permanent disability is affected or will affect the earning capacity of the claimant".

In that case as well as in "Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Another." [(2017) 3 SCC 351], the Apex Court held that

"multiplier methods should be adopted while assessing compensation and after considering the profession of claimant, the loss of earning capacity can be determined".

7. In the case at hand, at the time of accident, the claimant was in State service as Police Constable. His School Transfer Certificate (Exh. 44) shows that the date o