JUDGMENT :

REKHA PALLI, J

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimant seeks to assail the award dated 22.01.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Suit no. 313/2010 insofar as it relates to the quantum of compensation, which it is contended is inadequate.

2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,59,360/- along with interest @ 9% per annum as compensation to the appellant. The said compensation has been awarded under the following eight heads:-

3. Since the parties are ad idem regarding the details of the unfortunate accident which took place on 07.03.2010, wherein the appellant suffered grievous injuries leading to amputation of his right leg below the knee and 60% permanent disability of his right leg, necessitating the use of an artificial limb, a detailed discussion regarding the accident and the nature of injuries is not deemed necessary.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved only in so far as the compensation awarded towards “loss of future earning capacity”, “pain and suffering”, “loss of enjoyment of amenities of life” and “artificial limb” are concerned. He submits that the compensation awarded under the aforesaid heads at serial nos.2, 3, 4 & 8 are highly inadequate.

5. He submits that while awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 9,21,060/- towards “loss of future earning capacity”, the learned tribunal has considered the appellant’s functional disability as 40% even though he is suffering from a permanent disability of 60% in his leg. He contends that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellant was working as a Foreman, whose primary job entailed running up and down in “under construction high rise buildings and construction sites”, which he is not in a position to do anymore on account of the amputation of his right leg. The appellant, is therefore not in a position to carry out strenuous physical work and consequently his working capacity has been reduced by over 60%. He submits that in a case like this where the appellant was working at construction sites, it was a fit case where in the light of his permanent disability of 60% in the right leg, the learned tribunal ought to have accepted his functional disability of 100%. In support of his plea, he seeks to place reliance on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Manoj Kumar & Ors.[2018 ACJ 2409],

6. He next submits that the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head of “pain and suffering” is highly inadequate and the same should be enhanced to at least Rs.1,50,000/- as was done in Manoj Kumar (Supra).

Furthermore, the learned Tribunal also erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards “loss of enjoyment of amenities of life” by failing to appreciate the fact that on account of the amputation of his right leg, the appellant would be unable to carry out his routine work properly and would instead be dependent on others in every walk of life. He, therefore, contends that the amount awarded under both these heads be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.

7. He finally submits that even though the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,39,650/- to the appellant towards cost of artificial limb, the learned Tribunal has failed to award any amount towards replacement and maintenance of the artifici