ORDER Time taken for disposal of the claim petition Time taken for disposal of appeal by the High Court Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court 3 years 8 months 4 years 4 months 1 year 2 months Leave granted 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2023, passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 10130/2018 (MV-I) by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which, in turn was preferred against the order dated 26th September, 2018 in M.V.C No.982/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City, SCCH-4. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 11th August, 2013, the claimant-appellant, then aged 12 years, after practising dance class for the Independence Day Program at her school, was returning home in an auto-rickshaw at Tuppadamaduvina Gate, Bindiganavile, Nelamangala. While crossing the road after alighting from an auto-rickshaw, the KSRTC Bus (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) bearing registration number K.A.09.F.3563 collided with the claimant-appellant in a rash and negligent manner, dragging her for a certain distance. Consequently, the front wheel of the offending vehicle ran over both her legs and caused multiple injuries to the claimant-appellant. She initially received first aid at Nelamangala Hospital, was then transferred to the Beluru IT Hospital, and, subsequently, shifted to Hosmat Hospital, where she was treated for two months in the ICU. On account of multiple fractures and injuries suffered, both the legs of the claimant-appellant above the knee were amputated. 4. In connection with this incident, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5. A claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimant-appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, submitting therein that the claimant-appellant was still receiving treatment and has already spent more than Rs.10 Lakhs on medical and conveyance. After the incident, due to the injuries suffered, she was completely bedridden and needed the assistance of a female servant. 6. The Tribunal, vide its order, held that the respondent, being the owner and insurer, is liable to pay an amount of Rs.18,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant-appellant, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal, vide its order, held that the respondent, being the owner and insurer, is liable to pay an amount of Rs.18,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant-appellant, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal assessed the disability suffered by her as 100%. An amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was awarded towards the loss of income due to permanent disability and further awarded varied compensation towards different heads. 7. Aggrieved, the claimant-appellant filed an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The High Court, vide the impugned order, partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation amount by an amount of Rs.34,69,200/-, the total compensation arrived at was Rs.53,19,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. The Court assessed the notional income of the claimant-appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month as per the cost of living and wages at the time of the incident. In furtherance of the exposition of law in Master Ayush v. the Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2022) 7 SCC 738 the Court awarded Rs.24,19,200/- under the head of loss of future earnings due to disability. Further reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC Online 1701 to award an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-, including the cost of Prosthetic Limbs under the head of Future Medical Expenses, and further enhance the compensation amount under various heads. 9. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant is now before us. The significant points of challenge are as follows: a. The notional income of Rs.8,000/- as assessed by the High Court, is on the lower side. b. The High Court wrongly considered the cost of a Prosthetic Leg at Rs.2,88,400/-; it should be Rs.4,43,070/-. c. Attendant Charges have not been appropriately awarded. d. Interest should be 12%, and Litigation expenses should be awarded to the claimant-appellant. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. On the notional income of the claimant-appellant, in our view, Rs.8,000/- per month is on the lower side. The accident took place in the year 2013, when the child was just 12 years of age and had a bright future ahead of her. She was having an all-round development and was multifaceted in her interests. 11. On the notional income of the claimant-appellant, in our view, Rs.8,000/- per month is on the lower side. The accident took place in the year 2013, when the child was just 12 years of age and had a bright future ahead of her. She was having an all-round development and was multifaceted in her interests. The amputation of her legs, undoubtedly, have deteriorated her prospects of pursuing her interests in life. In the attending facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to fix her notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month. 12. However, we agree with the claimant-appellant’s submission on the amount awarded under other heads being on the lower side. Coming to the future medical expenses, the High Court granted an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- under the head of future medical expenses, including the cost of Prosthetic Limbs at Rs.2,88,000/-. From a bare perusal of the Letter of Quotation annexed as Annexure P-4 by the claimant-appellant, it is evident that the total cost of one pair of Prosthetic Limbs is Rs.4,43,070/-. Thereafter, on perusal of the evidence of PW-7 annexed as Annexure P-5, it is apparent that the claimant-appellant is required to change and maintain the artificial limb at least once every 5 years. In similar circumstances, this court in Mohd. Sabeer (supra) observed that: “23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. The appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.” Therefore, in the present case, the claimant would have to change her Prosthetic Legs, atleast six times during her lifetime. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.” Therefore, in the present case, the claimant would have to change her Prosthetic Legs, atleast six times during her lifetime. Therefore, in our view, we are inclined to award the compensation amount of Rs.26,58,420/- (4,43,070 X 6) towards the head of artificial limbs. 13. For the purpose of attendant charges, it is not in dispute that the claimant-appellant suffered 100% permanent disability due to the accident. She would require lifelong support and an attendant to assist her in his daily activities. This Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 had observed that for determining the attendant charges, the requirement of the claimant must be taken into consideration. 14. In our view, in furtherance of the above-mentioned explosion of law, it would be just and fair to award a compensation of Rs.21,60,000/- (Rs. 10,000 x 12 x 18) to the claimant-appellant, towards the head of attendant charges. 15. As a result of the discussion above, the compensation payable to the claimant-appellant in accordance with the law is as follows: CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income Rs.10,000/- Master Ayush v. the Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2022) 7 SCC 738 Para 10 Yearly Income Rs.1,20,000/- Future Prospects (40%) 1,20,000/- + 48,000/- = Rs.1,68,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 42 and 59 Multiplier (18) 1,68,000/- X 18 = Rs.30,24,000/- Permanent Disability (100%) 100% of 30,24,000/- = Rs.30,24,000/- Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 Para 13 and 14 Loss of Income/Future Earnings due to Disability Rs.30,24,000/- Attendant Charges 10,000 X 12 X 18 Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 Para 25, 28 and 29 = Rs.21,60,000 Special Diet & Transportation Rs.1,00,000/- Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 Para 89 Pain and Suffering Rs.10,00,000/- K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14 Loss of Income during treatment (for 28 Days) Rs.10,000/- - Loss of Amenities Rs.2,00,000/- Mohd. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 Para 13 and 14 Loss of Income during treatment (for 28 Days) Rs.10,000/- - Loss of Amenities Rs.2,00,000/- Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, (2022) SCC Online SC 1701 Para 23 and 26 Artificial Limb Rs.26,58,420/- TOTAL Rs.99,52,420/- Thus, the difference in compensation is as under: MACT High Court This Court Rs.18,50,000/- Rs.53,19,200/- Rs.99,52,420/- 16. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned award dated 26th September, 2018 in M.V.C No.982 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City, SCCH-4, as modified by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru vide the impugned order dated 17th April, 2023, passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.10130 of 2018 stands modified accordingly. Interest is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal. 17. The amount be directly remitted in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal. The particulars of the bank account are to be immediately supplied by the learned counsel for the appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent. The amount be remitted positively within a period of four weeks, thereafter. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.