JUDGMENT Honble Amitava Lala, J.—According to the appellant-insurance company fixation of compensation amount has to be made on the basis of 70% disablement and the other points are already settled in the matter, therefore, he is only confined his argument on this point. Sri Vivek Kumar Birla learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before this Court that the concerned Doctor was examined before the Tribunal who said that disability of the right leg of the injured was 70% and not 90%. From the observations of the Tribunal concerned, it appears that the Tribunal considered such part of the evidence but ultimately on the basis of a case of paralysis and other one of permanent disablement fixed the amount of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs though on the basis of 70% disability. However, by an interim order, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was directed to be withdrawn by the claimant. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant contended before this Court that if the case of the claimant is considered by calling him to be present in the Court physically by adopting an appropriate method it will show certainly that the compensation awarded by the Court below was correctly determined. 3. Sri Vivek Kumar Birla brought our attention to the second Schedule provided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the M.A. Act) to show that in the case of notional income for compensation how the same will be determined. 4. In Mahendra Pal Singh v. Mukundi Lal, Prabandhak and others, 1996 ACJ 831, in which 3 Judges of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in connection with paying compensation, observed that the same will not be utilised as ready reckoner but as a guide. Thereafter in several judgments, Courts followed the principles that calculation as per Schedule under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act cannot be recorded as ready reckoner but as a guide. In the present case, the Insurance Company has contended that as per the Doctor’s report, the claimant cannot be said to be permanently disabled. Therefore, according to us, irrespective of the factum whether the Schedule is ready reckoner or not, the same will not be applicable in this case. The ready reckoner is applicable as per Section 163-A of the M.V. Act when there is a case of death or permanent disablement. Therefore, according to us, irrespective of the factum whether the Schedule is ready reckoner or not, the same will not be applicable in this case. The ready reckoner is applicable as per Section 163-A of the M.V. Act when there is a case of death or permanent disablement. If the case is not goes on permanent disablement but the disablement simplicitor then it will attract Section 168 of the M.V. Act for fixing just and appropriate compensation. However, at the time of fixing of just compensation, the Court has to bear in mind the several factum whether such fixation is going to higher side or lower side. If it goes to higher side, the Court can re-quantify such compensation. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company have contended before this Court that if it will go by Section 163-A of the M.V. Act appropriate compensation would be Rs. 1,78,000/- and if some other method is adopted in any event the amount will not go beyond Rs. 2 lakhs. We are of the view that one has to take one stand. We cannot allow to take stand on Section 163-A of the M.V. Act as well as Section 168 of the M.V. Act, in the manner he tried to establish the compensation in the lower side. Therefore, according to us the just compensation amount this case will be round about 3 lakhs. Since, such amount has already been paid to the claimant by an interim order of this Court, we confirm the same would be full and final amount of compensation. 6. Thus, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order is passed as to costs. Honble V.C. Misra, J.—I agree. ————