JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 01.02.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal'), for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimant to the tune of Rs.3,03,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, on account of injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 14.08.2003.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, as the claimant/appellant was 34 years of age at the time of accident. He is the sole bread earner of the family with six dependents including 3 minor children. He suffered multiple injuries including injury on his left arm i.e amputation of left arm above elbow. His permanent disability was assessed to the extent of 80%, as per disability certificate Ex P35. Further nothing has been awarded under the head of pain and sufferings, attendant charges etc. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant was 34 years of age at the time of accident and was self employed. The claimant/appellant has produced his income tax return (Ex P34) showing that his annual income is Rs.63780/-. Therefore, after deducting the required tax on the annual income of the appellant, his net income for computation of compensation is assessed as Rs.5169/- per month/-. The claimant/appellant suffered disability to the extent of 80%, as per disability certificate Ex P35. The appellant sustained multiple injuries. He remained admitted in various hospitals. His left arm above elbow was amputated. The learned Tribunal while granting the compensation has not taken into consideration the future of the appellant, consequent to the accident. The learned Tribunal has not rightly assessed the income of the appellant while awarding compensation. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

7. A perusal of the record reveals that the claimant/appellant suffered various injuries on his body and due to the injuries, his left arm above elbow was amputated, due to which, he has to depend upon prosthetic for his entire life. Therefore, he must be granted compensation on account of the expenditure made on purchase and maintenance of prosthetics. Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of G Vivek Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ann, 2023 AC J 585. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:-

7. While accepting the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company in part, thereby reducing the compensation amount of Rs.56,00,000/-, the only reason discernible from the Order passed by the High Court reads as follows:- "As the claimant sustained disability to the extent of 97% due to amputation of his right leg and other complications, learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of '15' to calculate the loss of income. Taking the notional income of the claimant at Rs. 10,000/- per month and adding 50%o towards his future prospects, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.27,00,000/-, towards loss of future income. Learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs.16,82,497/- towards medical expenses, transport and attendant charges, Rs.3