AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

This is an appeal against the award dated 8.10.2002, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

2. The bare facts necessary for adjudication of the issue involved in the present appeal are that on 29.6.1999 the claimant Surjit Kaur wife of Puran Chand was travelling in Haryana Roadways Bus bearing Registration No. HR-45-3404 from Karnal to Dera Bassi. The bus was being driven by Kulwant Singh. At about 12:30 p.m. when the bus reached Dera Bassi bus stop, the claimant was getting down from the bus from the front door. The driver negligently suddenly started the bus. As a result of the negligent driving there was jerk because of which left leg of the claimant was crushed under the rear wheels of the bus. She was got admitted in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. Her left leg was amputated. Thereafter she remained admitted in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh for six days.

3. The claim petition was moved under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After considering the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Kulwant Singh, driver, as a result of which the claimant suffered injuries. It was proved on record that she had suffered 40% permanent disability because of amputation of the left leg below knee joint (certificate Ex.A2). The age of the claimant at the time of accident was 40 years. She was a housewife and was stated to be earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by Tailoring and Embroidery. The Tribunal awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- as detailed below:

It is this award of the Tribunal, which has been challenged by the appellant before this Court seeking further enhancement of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that for 40% permanent disability, Rs. 20,000/- granted by the Tribunal is very less. He further argued that only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been granted under the heading of “loss of social status”, whereas the claimant has lost her left leg. Learned counsel further argued that the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation for “pain and suffering”.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has opposed the enhancement of compensation submitting that the claimant has not been able to establish that she was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. No proof with regard to her income has been produced. Learned counsel further argued that the claimant is a house wife and no evidence has been produced to prove that she is not able to perform her day to day work. It has been further argued that no evidence has been brought on record to show that amputation of a leg has effected the efficiency of the claimant to perform her day to day activities.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it is evident that the Tribunal while passing the award has not taken into consideration the fact that the claimant will have to suffer for rest of her life and would never be able to lead a normal life, though the Tribunal had recorded that no evidence was adduced in support of claimant's earning Rs. 3000/- per month.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others Versus Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015 (4) SCC 237, has held as under:

''Even assuming Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi was not self-employe