JUDGMENT :- Anand Byrareddy, J. This appeal was heard alongwith several other appeals on a common issue namely, the quantum of compensation towards the loss of future earning or loss of future earning capacity, on account of the permanent disability occasioned as a result of personal injuries suffered by a victim in a motor accident. As the computation of compensation under this particular head of claim continues to be strongly disputed in most cases it was felt necessary to seek the assistance of several Counsel at the Bar. This Court had the valuable assistance of the following Shri S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate appearing for Shri Shripad V.Shastri for the appellant, herein, Shri R.Rajagopalan, Shri A.N. Krishna Swamy, Shri O. Mahesh, Shri R. Ravishankar, Shri K.K. Vasanth, Smt. Harini Shivanand, Shri B.S. Umesh, Shri. K. Suryanarayana Rao, Shri A. Ravishankar, Shri A.M. Venkatesh, Shri R. Jayaprakash, Shri Arun Ponnappa and Shri Shrishaila, representing either the appellant or the respondents in the several appeals where the issue has arisen for consideration. However, in order to avoid prolixity, separate judgments are rendered in each of their cases. 2. The brief facts in the above appeal are as follows: The appellant was the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He was working as a driver and was aged about 45, at the time of accident and claimed to be earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. On 6.11.2000, while he was riding a two-wheeler, it was hit by a car as a result of which, the appellant had sustained a fracture of the right humerus and the right ulna, apart from other injuries. He was admitted to a Hospital and even after treatment, the Medical Practitioner had assessed that there was a permanent impairment to the right upper limb of the appellant, at 60% which according to the medical practitioner's opinion translated to a permanent impairment to the whole-body at 20%. It was on this basis that the appellant had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads: a) Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering b) Rs.27,000/- towards medical expenses c) Rs.2,800/- towards other expenses d) Rs.55,640/- towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. e) Rs.20,000/- towards his disability. It is further held that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation towards any future loss of income. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads: a) Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering b) Rs.27,000/- towards medical expenses c) Rs.2,800/- towards other expenses d) Rs.55,640/- towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. e) Rs.20,000/- towards his disability. It is further held that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation towards any future loss of income. The appellant, however, is before the Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The several grounds urged to seek enhancement of compensation under the conventional heads of claim include the ground that even though the appellant continues to work as a driver even after the accident, the appellant would still be entitled to compensation towards future loss of earning capacity. 3. As this is a common question that arises time and again as in the present appeal and others that were heard, the case-law and the principles evolved are reviewed. In C.J. Paul Vs. Syed Peer, AIR 1982 Kant. 281, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with a claim for compensation of a victim of a motor accident, who had sustained a compound fracture of the right patella and a compound fracture of the right femur, whereby his right leg had become shortened by 3 inches and he had a stiffened knee joint, even after treatment, and in addressing the claim for loss of earning has held as follows: "6. We would take up for consideration the loss of earning. The petitioner as well as the doctor have deposed that he is not likely to go back and serve in the job. He was getting Rs.687.20 ps. as salary at the time of accident. He was also getting bonus of 20 per cent annually and he was likely to be promoted as `A' grade attender. Having regard to all these, for the purpose of loss of salary, we take the multiplicand at Rs. 700/-and having regard to the rate of interest prevailing in the society, we take the multiplier at 10 Rs.700 x 12 will be Rs.8,400 x 10 would be Rs.84.000/-. That would be the loss of earning of Syed Peer. 7. It is no doubt true that the principle is that both the interest and part of the capital must be utilized and the entire amount awarded should be exhausted at the end of the tether. (Vide Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 12 para 1156). That would be the loss of earning of Syed Peer. 7. It is no doubt true that the principle is that both the interest and part of the capital must be utilized and the entire amount awarded should be exhausted at the end of the tether. (Vide Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 12 para 1156). K.S.R.T.C Vs. H. Sarojamma, 1981 (1) KLCP 69. Besides there is a duty cast on the victim to mitigate the damages by doing some work which he can do. In that view of Rs.84,000/-, is on the higher side. Because throughout his life he would get by way of interest. Rs.700/- per month and towards the end Rs.84,000/-would be still in the Bank. What we are awarding is on the higher side but, we award the saute for the simple reason that even after retirement he had chances of earning and he had chances of saving and we have added only Rs.10/- per month towards prospects of promotion. Hence, we do not propose to reduce Rupees 84,000/-arrived at by using the multiplier at 10. To this has to be added general damages which is mainly for pain and suffering for loss of amenities and for the injuries suffered. This Court has been awarding between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- in, the case of injuries like the present ones which resulted in stiffness of the knee and restriction of the movement of the hip joint reducing the earning capacity where no separate awards are made for loss of earning. On the facts of this case a separate award is made for loss of earning at Rs.84,000/-. Therefore, we deem it just and proper to award Rs.20,000/ -as general damages mainly for pain and suffering and loss of amenities as also the disability left over. To this has to be added Rs.15,824/- special damages awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses etc. Together therefore, the claimant is entitled to global compensation of Rs.1,19,824/-instead of Rs.5,05,824 / -. No separate damages are call for, for the temporary loss of sexual pleasure in view of the total compensation granted. (Vide Fletcher Vs. Autocar and Transporter Limited, 1969 ACJ 99) (AC)." In Subashchand Jain Vs. Ganapathi and Another, ILR 2002 Kar. Together therefore, the claimant is entitled to global compensation of Rs.1,19,824/-instead of Rs.5,05,824 / -. No separate damages are call for, for the temporary loss of sexual pleasure in view of the total compensation granted. (Vide Fletcher Vs. Autocar and Transporter Limited, 1969 ACJ 99) (AC)." In Subashchand Jain Vs. Ganapathi and Another, ILR 2002 Kar. 3355 a Division Bench of this Court in an appeal by the injured claimant in a motor accident, who had suffered serious injuries, namely a fracture of the right femur, a fracture of the right zygomatic complex, a fracture of the nasal bridge, a fracture of nosos eluamoidal, a fracture of the mandible and other injuries, was denied a claim towards loss of future income in the claimant's business and it was held that the income from business should have been proved in the first instance and further, to what extent it stands reduced on account of the injury and in the absence of any evidence in this regard, the Court has held that the principles for determining loss of future earning in respect of a person who earns income by physical labour and whose bodily injury directly affects the work and earning capacity of such person cannot be pressed into service. Further, that the loss attributable due to the physical disability resulting in loss of earning is different from the loss which can be attributed to earning capacity from a business. It was observed that any physical disability need not necessarily result in loss of earning from business and there was no occasion to apply the same principles. In Bhaskar Rao Vs. Arun Kumar, ILR 2002 Kar. 615, the claimant was sales officer. Since he continued in the same job, even after the injuries suffered in an accident, a Division Bench of this Court had set aside the award of compensation towards future loss of income in the following words: ".... the very fact that the respondent is continuing in the same job and the very fact that he is drawing the same salary, on par with other sales officers of Zandu Pharmaceuticals, question of awarding future loss of income calculating on the basis of percentage of disability and applying the multiplier based on the age of the claimant is unknown to law. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reassessed based on the evidence adduced by the parties. — In Ramesh Lal Vs. National Insurance Company, 2003 ACJ 134 . In respect of a claimant who had suffered 100% permanent disability, a Division Bench of this Court has awarded Rs.2,70,000/- towards the claim of loss of future income on the basis that the age of the claimant was `37' at the date of the accident and his monthly income having been taken at Rs.1,500/- and applying a multiplier of 15. — In K. Narasimha Murthy Vs. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore and Another, ILR 2004 Kar. 2471 – A Division Bench of this Court has held that while estimating future loss of income, the Court can take into account the future prospects of the injured or the deceased of earning more income by way of promotions or otherwise and has taken into account the age of the injured claimant and his monthly income in making an assessment of the future loss of income and has awarded a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- under that head of claim. In State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur, AIR 2003 SC 3696 , the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real senses `damages" which in turn appears to it to be just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be 'just" and it cannot be a bonanza; nor a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals shave a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amounts of compensation, which should he just. What would be just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. What would be just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or node adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3191." In New India Assurance Company Vs. Papamma, ILR 2006 Kar. 3316, a Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows:- "11. All that emerges from the above observations is that there cannot be any rigid rule of application in the matter of determining the future loss of earning capacity. For clarity, it would be proper to give two illustrations. One would be, take a case of a professional Singer. If he were to suffer damages to his Vocal Chord resulting in loss of speech, there is a direct loss of earning capacity in totality. But, in terms of medical science, his physical disability in relation to whole body would be only 10 to 15%. Similar will be the case of a Vascular Surgeon who lost thumb of the right palm.. In medical parlance, the physical incapacity would be valued only between 5 to 10% of the whole body. But, when it comes to his earning capacity, he looses the entire practice as a Vascular Surgeon and there is, therefore, loss of total future earning capacity as Vascular Surgeon. In such case, it cannot be said that even if he cannot work as such, can earn by any other avocation. But, when it comes to his earning capacity, he looses the entire practice as a Vascular Surgeon and there is, therefore, loss of total future earning capacity as Vascular Surgeon. In such case, it cannot be said that even if he cannot work as such, can earn by any other avocation. The answer is, we have to consider the source and the income which the victim had at the time of accident keeping in mind the contingencies as referred to in the quotations extracted above and his capacity to do any other work." "13. We may also mention that the decision the Learned Counsel relied upon was rendered by this Court while dealing with the issue pertaining to Workmen's Compensation and not under the motor vehicles claim laws. The issue that come up for consideration before the Court was what would be the established mode of determination of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act to a person who still can continue to carry on his manual job. But, in the accident claims, as in this case, the determination has to be done as provided under the provisions of Section 166 of M.V.Act and such determination must be just compensation as required under Section 168 of the Act. For determination of what would be the just compensation but it should be reasonable, fair and justified considering the circumstances established by acceptable evidence. The circumstances are, the nature of injury, the resultant physical incapacity and the impact which is has on the victims earning capacity. Therefore, though it is a general principle that physical disability will have bearing on earning capacity, this cannot be a hard and fast rule. Earning capacity has to be adjudged considering the evidence about loss of the real earning capacity, which again be dependant upon the nature of job or avocation." While the above are a sample of cases either granting or refusing to grant compensation under the head of future loss of earning or earning capacity — the following are observations found in a few commentaries which may be usefully referred to, for purposes of appreciating the process involved in making an assessment of the compensation, if payable, and the other factors that ought to weigh in arriving at a decision. "As estimate of prospective loss must be based, in the first instance, on a foundation of solid facts: otherwise it is not an estimate, but a guess. It is therefore important that evidence should be given to the Court of as many solid facts as possible. When it is shown that the plaintiff was earning money at a specified rate at the time of the injury, the ordinary presumption of law is that he would have continued to earn at the same rate. If the plaintiff claims that he would have earned more, he must prove relevant facts, for example by showing that he was on a regular ladder of promotion, or in a trade where individual rates of pay are increased by stages, or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have lead to an improvement. Evidence may be given of a probable increase of productivity in his particular industry or trade, and therefore of real earnings, but evidence of a probable increase in national productivity - and therefore of `real' earnings all round -- is too speculative to carry any weight: Mitchell Vs. Mulholland, (No.2) (1972) 1 QB 65: (1971) 2 All ER 1205. Conversely the defendant may call evidence that the plaintiff was in poor health, or in an occupation where employment is casual or irregular, or that for some other reason his future earnings were precarious. Loss of earnings is the most common form of prospective loss, but relevant facts should also be proved in other cases of continuing loss, such as the expense of nursing and household assistance where the plaintiff is a permanent invalid. The ordinary chances and uncertainties of life should also be taken into account, but this includes good luck as well as bad lack, improvement in earnings or better opportunities, and there is certainly no rule of law that on balance a deduction should be made.”: Damages for Personal Injuries and Death John Munkman (Tenth Edition) Pages 46 — 47)" "There are many permutations. There may be a total loss of earnings for life; or a permanent partial loss of earnings, either at a fixed rate or a rate slowly tapering off as the plaintiff becomes readjusted; or a loss, total or partial or tapering, for a limited period, if there is a tapering loss, it is convenient to estimate an average over the period. Since the earlier loss has a greater present value than the later, the average of a varying loss should be weighted somewhat towards the earlier figures (Page 62 supra). "There are many cases where, after recovering from the immediate effects of an injury, the plaintiff returns to his former work at the same rate, or takes up other work with similar or better pay, so that there is no visible continuing loss. Nevertheless, there are innumerable ways in which he may be worse off in future -whether he loses his present employment, which is the possibility usually envisaged, or not. He may be handicapped in getting new work at all: even his appearance may tell against him, for instance if he has visible eye or hand injuries though he has adopted with complete success. He may be a skilled man in a supervisory position, but handicapped for skilful handling or heavy work if reduced by redundancy to a lower position. He may have had plans to change to another career, for instance to take an apprenticeship or join the Navy, which is no longer open to him. Where pay depends on piecework or overtime, he may not be able to do so much. He may have to take time off for a painful back or a future operation. These cases are sometimes described as `loss of earning capacity, but this is inaccurate as all claims for future earnings are based on loss of capacity. What distinguishes these from other cases is that there is no immediate loss and future loss is uncertain. This does not prevent an award of damages. The Court has to assess and value the chance that there will be actual loss sooner or later................................ ". "What has to be quantified is the present value of the risk of future financial loss. If there is no significant risk of actual loss of earning sooner or later there should be no award. If there is a significant risk, its value depends on how great the risk is and how far in the future. Where the risk lies in finding a new job if the present one is lost - the most common case - the plaintiffs skills and adaptability (or lack of them) should be taken into account, and the opportunities likely to be open in his area. Where the risk lies in finding a new job if the present one is lost - the most common case - the plaintiffs skills and adaptability (or lack of them) should be taken into account, and the opportunities likely to be open in his area. The Court has to apply its judgment to the relevant facts and assess a round figure." (Pages 70-71 supra) x x x "22-29(d) Loss of earning capacity of "handicap in the labour market": In cases of continuing disability the claimant may be able to remain in his employment but with the risk that, if he loses that employment at some time in the future, he may then, as a result of his injury, be at a disadvantage in getting another job or an equally well-paid job. This "loss of earning capacity" has always been a compensable head of damage but has come into more prominence in recent years. Probably as a result of the growth of the practice of "itemising" awards. Assessment of damages under this head may be highly speculative and clearly no mathematical approach is possible but the Court should be satisfied that there is a "substantial" or "real" risk that the claimant will be subject to the disadvantage before the end of his working life. If so satisfied, The Judge must then do his best to value the "chance, taking into account all the facts of the case." Wifield and Jolowicz – Tort – Seventeenth Edition Para 22-29 Page 975. X X X "890. Loss of earning capacity. Where the injured plaintiff has not at the date of trial sustained a loss of or reduction in his earnings, he may still claim an award of damages if his injures make it more likely that he will lose his job and that any job he may subsequently find will be less well paid. Such an award is to compensate him for the weakening of his competitive position in the open labour market. These awards are not generally calculated according to the usual multiplier and multiplicand formula, although it may appear appropriate, in the circumstances of a given case, to use it. Such an award is to compensate him for the weakening of his competitive position in the open labour market. These awards are not generally calculated according to the usual multiplier and multiplicand formula, although it may appear appropriate, in the circumstances of a given case, to use it. Instead, the Court will look at the weakness `in the round', take note of the various contingencies and do its best to reach an assessment which will do justice to the plaintiff The Courts will taken into account: 1) whether there is a real risk that the plaintiff will be forced onto the labour marked before retirement age; 2) the extent of his injury or disability; 3) how long it would take him to find alternative employment if forced onto the labour market; 4) the reduction in salary which he would suffer thereby. There is no limit on the amount that may be awarded on this basis. In some instances, loss of future earnings may overlap with an award for loss of earning capacity, but it is generally desirable to assess reduction in earning capacity separately from loss of earnings. While it is generally advisable specifically to plead such damages, it will not be fatal to the plaintiffs claim if they are not so pleaded, provided it is apparent from the claim that the plaintiff has sustained a handicap in the labour market which should be compensated." "(3) A `broad brush' approach may be adopted in estimating the loss of future earnings and the plaintiffs vulnerability in the labour market: Goldborough Vs. Thompson and Crowther (1996) PIQR Q 86, CA. See also Page Vs. Enfield and Haringey Area Health. Authority (1986) Times, 7 November, CA ; Davies Vs. Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust (11 March 1998. unreported), CA.” Halsbumy's Laws of England Fourth Edition Vol.12(1) Para 890 and Note 3 pages 353 and 354 4. The next aspect that requires to be addressed is the actual physical impairment resulting from the injuries suffered in the accident. The assessment of disability made by medical practitioners is invariably attacked, rather virulently, especially by Counsel for the insurance Companies who are mulcted with the liability to pay compensation and on occasion justifiably so. There is a need for authentic, accurate and consistent assessment as to the physical impairment. 5. The assessment of disability made by medical practitioners is invariably attacked, rather virulently, especially by Counsel for the insurance Companies who are mulcted with the liability to pay compensation and on occasion justifiably so. There is a need for authentic, accurate and consistent assessment as to the physical impairment. 5. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, has issued a Notification dated 1.6.2001 providing guidelines for evaluation of various disabilities and procedure for certification. This was in modification of the guidelines issued earlier in the year 1986 and in view of the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995, the Government of India had set up four Committees, in terms of its order dated 28.8.1998, under the chairmanship of the Director General of Health Services, one each in the area of Mental Retardation, Locomotor and Orthopaedic Disability, Visual Disability and Speech and Hearing disability. Further, in the year 1999, a fifth Committee was constituted for evaluation of assessment of Multiple Disabilities. The Government has under the said notification approved the recommendations of the Committees and has issued guidelines. The office of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Bangalore has published the same as a booklet. The guidelines provide for evaluation of disability and the procedure for certification. The disabilities are classified as follows: a) Visual impairment b) Locomotor/Orthopaedic disability c) Speech and hearing disability d) Mental Retardation e) Multiple Disabilities The above are defined and categorised according to the degree or percentage of disability. Minute details as to the manner in which the particular disabilities are to be assessed are provided. These include ready-reckoner tables and formulae for computing the percentage of disability. The authority to issue a Disability Certificate is a Medical Board duly constituted by the Central and State Governments. Every such Board must consist of atleast three members, of which, atleast one member is a Specialist from either the field of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation or Orthopaedics. 6. There is no reason why a Disability Certificate issued in accordance with the above guidelines by a Medical Board duly constituted, as above, ought not to be accepted for purposes of determining compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. This would ensure a reasonably safe, accurate and consistent assessment of disability that can be acted upon by all concerned. 6. There is no reason why a Disability Certificate issued in accordance with the above guidelines by a Medical Board duly constituted, as above, ought not to be accepted for purposes of determining compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. This would ensure a reasonably safe, accurate and consistent assessment of disability that can be acted upon by all concerned. A minimum disability of 40% is to be prevalent in a person, to claim benefits under the Disabilities Act, 1995; This, of course, would not be relevant for purposes of claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is however to be kept in view that the Medical Board or the Medical Practitioners address the impairment in relation to the human body and not in relation to a person with a particular avocation. The guidelines prescribed do not envisage a procedure to assess the disability suffered by an individual with reference to his particular avocation, geographical location, educational background, family conditions and such other factors. The evidence of a Medical Practitioners as regards the physical impairment is thus limited in scope, its consequence on the avocation or activity of a claimant are matters which are to be established at the trial and it is for the Court or Tribunal to assess the loss of earning capacity with reference to the same. 7. It is important to keep in view that the assessment of disability, as per the guidelines, is to be made when the clinical condition has reached the maximum improvement, after medical treatment. Cases where medical treatment would continue in future are, of course, exceptions. This observation is made as, on occasion, it is found that the assessment made by a Medical Practitioner is negated on the ground that such an assessment has been made long after the date of accident. On the other hand, if physical impairment has persisted even long after the date of accident, it is better evidence to support the case that there is in fact a physical impairment which is to be compensated for causing loss of earning. The following conclusions would follow: 1. Loss of earning or loss of earning capacity is a well established head of claim. It cannot be restricted only to persons engaged in physical labour. 2. The following conclusions would follow: 1. Loss of earning or loss of earning capacity is a well established head of claim. It cannot be restricted only to persons engaged in physical labour. 2. In estimating the financial or pecuniary loss there must be evidence of the nature and extent of the loss on which the Court can form an opinion. 3. On proof of the amount of earnings lost and expenses incurred upto the date of trial, the claimant is entitled to a full indemnity which are awarded as special damages. 4. In a claim of loss of earnings, the following steps are involved in deciding the same: (a) It is to be firstly decided as to what the claimant would have been earning if the accident had not occurred, while allowing for future increase or decrease in the rate of earnings. (b) Then it is necessary to decide how long the loss is likely to continue, whether there is an incapacity for life or for a short period. (c) Finally an estimate must be made of the amount (if any) which the claimant can still earn in future notwithstanding his disability. 5. The assessment of a claim for future financial loss either, future loss of earning or expenses to be incurred in the future, pose several difficulties. For the prospective loss cannot be claimed as precisely calculated special damages, as it has not been sustained at the date of trial. It is therefore awarded as part of General damages. (a) future loss cannot usually be proved only a broad estimate can be made by the Court, on the proved facts and probabilities of each particular case. (b) It would be a matter of evidence in each case, whether there is a total loss of earning or a permanent partial loss of earning or whether the loss is at a rate slowly tapering-off, as the claimant may become readjusted; or it could even be a loss total, partial or tapering, for a limited period. It would in the discretion of the Court to arrive at an average of the varying loss. It would in the discretion of the Court to arrive at an average of the varying loss. (c) Only because, a claimant returns to his former work at the same rate or takes up other work with a similar or better pay indicating that there is no visible continuing loss, the Court ought not to lose sight of the innumerable ways that a claimant maybe worse-off in future. Whether the loss of the present employment which is a possibility usually envisaged or that he may be handicapped in getting a new job, even his appearance may tell against him, as for instance, if he has a visible eye or hand injury, though he would have adapted with complete success. In other words, in cases where there is no immediate loss and future loss, if uncertain, it ought not to prevent an award of damages. The Court ought to assess and value the chance that there will be actual loss sooner or later. (d) The award of compensation ought not to be excessively generous, under the head of loss of future earnings, as would far exceed the claimant's earnings if he had not sustained the impairment. 8. Coming to the facts of the present appeal, the Counsel for the respondent – Insurer would strongly resist the claim and would assert that a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded by he Tribunal towards the claim for compensation on account of disability. This is in the face of a finding by the Tribunal itself that the claimant was re-employed as a driver and continued to work as a driver at the time of the trial. Hence, the award under that head itself was not justified. The question of addressing a claim for additional compensation on the specious plea of loss of earning capacity cannot be sustained. The principles laid down in decided cases or as expounded by learned authors by itself would not suffice to sustain such a claim. There is authority to hold that unless an actual loss or a probable loss can be discerned from proved facts and probabilities, the question of granting any compensation towards the speculative claim for loss of earning capacity would cause hardship to the respondents. He would draw reference to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur's case supra, that compensation is not expected to be a wind-fall for the victim. He would draw reference to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur's case supra, that compensation is not expected to be a wind-fall for the victim. The compensation awarded is more than just and fair and therefore, the appeal be rejected. 9. Keeping in view of the several authorities and the principles enunciated, the claim towards medical expenses was held to be established to the extent of Rs.26,026/- and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.27,000/- though the claim was for Rs.75,000/-under that head. It is to be noticed that the Tribunal has also found that the appellant had undergone treatment for over a hundred days, which would indicate that the appellant has incurred much expenses, all of which may not be evidenced by bills and prescriptions which have been produced. The claim, therefore, even if said to be exaggerated, ought to have been awarded in a slightly higher amount. The appellant is, therefore, held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,800/- towards hospital expenses as an in-patient and Rs.1000/- towards transportation and other expenses. The accident was of the year 2000 and this paltry amount of compensation cannot be justified as being sufficient to meet the possible expenditure. The same requires to be enhanced at least by a further sum of Rs.7,000/-. The appellant's disability has been assessed by the medical practitioner at 60% to the upper limb and at 20% in relation to the whole body. The award of Rs.20,000/-towards disability is only a partial compensation. The consequence of the disability is two-fold. There is certainly loss of amenities which the appellant would have enjoyed if he had not suffered injury to his limb. This requires to be separately compensated. And further, the second consequence is that it would result in a disability in his avocation. Therefore, insofar as loss of amenities are concerned, the appellant was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and hence, the appellant is held entitled to an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. Though it is found as a fact that the appellant is re-employed as a driver, this does not presuppose that he was continuing to drive with the same ease and efficiency that he was capable of before the accident. Though it is found as a fact that the appellant is re-employed as a driver, this does not presuppose that he was continuing to drive with the same ease and efficiency that he was capable of before the accident. The appellant has tendered evidence as regards the circumstance that he is no longer able to drive properly and that he is not in a position to drive heavy vehicles, which he was capable of driving earlier and the disability being a permanent disability, he would be burdened with the same throughout his life. He is disqualified from being engaged by an employer who may readily note his less efficient driving. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is no loss of earning capacity. It is this looming misfortune of loss of employment on account of the permanent disability which has made him less efficient, certainly requires to be compensated in the presence of positive evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, the appellant has made out a case for compensation towards loss of earning capacity on the basis adopted by this Court. Though the basis that has been consistently adopted in calculating the compensation by applying the multiplier method may not be relevant here as there is no proof of a total loss of earning or a reduction in the earning, it is the chance of that reduction or loss which is compensated and therefore, the appellant is entitled to a nominal compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. The appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is held entitled to a total additional compensation of Rs.65,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment.