JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The injured claimant aged about 19 at the time of filing of MACP No. 629/97 has challenged the judgment delivered in MACP No. 629/97 on 20.12.2011 by MACT (Aux), Vadodara.

2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the claimant before the Tribunal suggest that he was serving as a cleaner-cum-labourer on truck bearing registration no. GJ-15 V-8683 owned by opponent no. 2. On 22.2.1997, he was returning in the truck after unloading the goods at Anand Taluka and was sitting besides the driver seat. The claimant had urged that the opponent no. 1 had driven the truck in excessive speed and was rash and negligent. When they reached near Village Vaghasi on National Highway no. 8, opponent no. 1 lost control over the vehicle and slided down the road and collided with the tree. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries on body.

3. Mr. Khan submitted that the Tribunal has granted compensation amount of only Rs. 3,30,800/- where the claimant has specifically proved before the Tribunal that he had lost his right leg below knee and the permanent disability has affected his livelihood as well as the marriage prospects. Mr. Khan submitted that the amputation of the right leg would require artificial limb which would not bring him in condition as was prior to the accident, but at least would help him to independently walk without any support and thus, stated that the learned Tribunal was required to grant the amount under the head of loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage prospects with the amount for artificial limb and for its maintenance and repair keeping in view the length of his life as he was 19 at the time of the accident. Mr. Khan submitted that the amount under the head of mental pain, shock and suffering should be relatable to the actual loss and the future physical loss and suffering which he would have to undergo.

4. Countering the arguments, Mr. Nanavati submitted that the Tribunal has compensated the claimant in accordance to the evidence on record. The future loss of income has been granted and even the amount under the head of replacement of limbs have been considered and the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering and the loss of marriage prospects has also been given by the Tribunal.

5. The claimant was serving as a cleaner-cum-labourer on the truck. In the fact of amputation of the right leg the vocation undertaken by the claimant as a cleaner/labourer would be totally lost. Hence, considering the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, functional disability is required to be considered as 100%.

6. The Tribunal has considered income of Rs. 18,000/- per annum for the claimant while no prospective rise in income has been considered in light of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. With the age of 19 years, 40% prospective rise in income is required to be considered. Hence, monthly income is required to be considered as Rs. 1,500/- and yearly, the income would be considered at Rs. 25,200/- (Rs. 18,000/- + 40% i.e. Rs. 7,200/-). With the functional disability of 100%, there would be total loss of income and thus, applying the multiplier of 18, future loss of income would come to Rs. 4,53,600/- (Rs. 25,200/- x 100% x 18).

7. The claimant would not have been in a position to work or move around for about 6 months. Hence, the Tribunal has considered 6 months actual loss of income and considering the same, has granted Rs. 9,000/- which is appropriate.

8. The claimant would have expended money for his medical expenses. The medical expenses could not be proved. However, the evidence on record suggest that the claimant had suffered compound Gr-III fracture tibia-fibula right with absent distal pulses and toe movements with compound Gr-I fracture M/3 tibia left with head injury. He w