JUDGMENT :

Mandeep Pannu, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 04.02.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby a sum of Rs.14,70,000 along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant-Anup, on account of permanent disability due to amputation of his left leg near knee, who has filed cross objection No.249-01-2016 for enhancement of the compensation.

2. Since there is no dispute with regard to the facts of the case, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The accident in question took place on 05.01.2014 at about 7:00 am and the claimant was 24 years old at the relevant time. The Tribunal assessed the compensation as under:-

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that Tribunal has erred in assessing permanent disability of the claimant as 100% whereas his disability is only to the extent of 60% in relation to his left lower limb on account of amputation of leg. He relies upon statement of Dr. Reena (PW1) who stated that 60% disability is only qua limb and if disability is taken qua the whole body, it will be reduced. He further submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and needs to be reassessed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for cross-objector/claimant has vehemently argued that permanent disability as assessed by the Tribunal is correct since left leg of the claimant near knee has been amputated due to serious injuries sustained by him in the accident. He was a young man aged 24 years at the time of accident and was going to appear for medical test in recruitment process of Constable, CRPF and he had already cleared the written examination for the said post. He further submits that due to unfortunate accident, his entire prospects of joining the armed forces have ended. Furthermore, the Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased as well as not granting any escalation thereon after adding future prospects @40% considering age of the claimant. He also prays for enhancement of compensation under heads 'loss of marriage prospects & amenities of life', 'special diet' and 'pain & suffering'.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Let us first analyse the extent of permanent disability suffered by the claimant. As per statement of Dr. Reena (PW1), claimant suffered 60% permanent disability qua limb only and is not with respect to the whole body. However, it is well settled law that courts should not adopt stereotypical or myopic approach in such matters rather case should be decided taking into consideration realities of life, both in assessment of extent of disabilities and compensation under various heads. In medical sense, permanent disability might be on lower side, however, its impact on earning capacity as well as basic amenities of life has been to kept in mind while assessing compensation for such loss. Reliance in this regard can be placed on judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. [2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 404] wherein it has been held as under :

'12. In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled