ORDER : G.S. Singhvi, S.J. Mukhopadhaya, JJ. Leave granted. 2. The Appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal filed by him u/s 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') against award dated 14.5.2009 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 184 of 2008. 3. In an accident, which occurred on 25.8.2007, the Appellant sustained fracture in his right thigh. He was operated upon by Dr. Suresh Chand Bandil, AW 2, and a steel rod was inserted in his thigh. 4. In the claim petition filed by him u/s 166 of the Act, the Appellant prayed for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. He pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. MP 07-HA 7334 by Anil Raheja, the Respondent No. 1, and as a result thereof, he had suffered permanent disability in his right thigh and was not able to do the work of salesman, which he was doing before the accident. In the written statement filed on behalf of insurance company, Respondent No. 3, it was pleaded that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and, in any case, the insurer was not liable because Respondent No. 1 was driving the tractor in violation of the conditions of policy and without having valid driving licence. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether on 25.8.2007, the non-applicant caused hurt to Manoj Rathaur by hitting him while driving the tractor No. MP 07-HA 7334 rashly and negligently? 2. Whether the applicant suffered permanent disability due to said accident? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000? 4. Whether on the date of accident, the non-applicant No. 1 had violated the terms of the policy by driving the vehicle without permit and without fitness certificate? 5. Relief and costs? 6. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the Respondent No. 1. 5. Relief and costs? 6. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the Respondent No. 1. However, the Tribunal discarded the testimony of the Appellant by observing that the statement made by him about his monthly income was not supported by any other evidence. The Claims Tribunal also did not believe the Appellant's assertion that he had suffered permanent disability and observed that Dr. Suresh Chand Bandil, AW 2, had not examined the Appellant scientifically for determining that he has suffered 20-25 per cent permanent disability. The Tribunal finally held that Appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 18,800 only. 7. The learned single Judge of the High Court summarily dismissed the appeal filed against the award of the Tribunal on the premise that the Appellant had failed to prove that as a result of accident he had suffered injury and became permanently disabled to the extent of 20-25 per cent. 8. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The criteria for determination of compensation in the cases of permanent and temporary disability suffered by the victim of an accident has been laid down in the recent judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 and Another, in the following words: “The provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from the consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earnings during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability; (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. (Emphasis supplied) 9. In the light of the propositions laid down in the aforesaid judgment, we may now advert to the evidence produced by the Appellant in support of his assertion that as a result of the injury suffered on the right thigh, he had become permanently disabled. Exh. P29 is the certificate issued by Dr. Suresh Chand Bandil, AW 2, who had operated the Appellant on 25.8.2007. In the certificate, AW 2 mentioned that the fracture on the right thigh of the Appellant had united but he was walking with limping gait; that there was permanent impairment of functions of his right thigh muscles and that his working capacity as a door-to-door salesman was reduced by 20-25 per cent permanently. In our view, Exh. In the certificate, AW 2 mentioned that the fracture on the right thigh of the Appellant had united but he was walking with limping gait; that there was permanent impairment of functions of his right thigh muscles and that his working capacity as a door-to-door salesman was reduced by 20-25 per cent permanently. In our view, Exh. P29 coupled with oral testimony of AW 2 was sufficient for recording a finding that Appellant had suffered permanent functional disability and the same had adversely affected his capacity to work as salesman. In his statement, Appellant described the effect of his injury in the following words: “Prior to the said accident, I used to work as salesman on my bicycle and used to sell goli, biscuits and namkeen, etc., wherefrom I used to earn Rs. 6,000 per month. Due to the injuries sustained by me in the accident, I have become incapable of doing the job of salesman, therefore, I am suffering the loss of income. Due to the fracture in the right leg and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, I have unbearable pain in the right leg, I have become incapable of moving without any support, therefore, I have become permanent disabled through my leg, whereby I have sustained unbearable mental and physical agony, which will continue throughout my life.” 10. In the cross-examination, he denied the negative suggestion put by the counsel for Respondent No. 3 on the question of his working as salesman and fabrication of the disability certificate. In his deposition, AW 2 categorically stated that he had issued the certificate of permanent disability. In the cross-examination, AW 2 made the following statement: “There was deficiency in the muscles of the right leg of the patient. This I have stated by comparative study of both his legs. No separate report is used to be issued regarding the deficiency in the muscles of the patient. It is true that it is not mentioned in the Exh. P29 that due to which reason the deficiency occurred in the muscles. Himself said that when there is fracture in the bone, then the muscles around it also get fractured and some muscles break during the operation. It is true that there is no mention in the treatment slips of the patient issued by me that the deficiency occurred in the right leg of the patient. Himself said that when there is fracture in the bone, then the muscles around it also get fractured and some muscles break during the operation. It is true that there is no mention in the treatment slips of the patient issued by me that the deficiency occurred in the right leg of the patient. The permanent disability of 20-25 per cent to the patient, which I have stated, that was mentioned by me on the basis of my knowledge. It is true that the patient of Exh. P29 does not have any deficiency regarding the mal-union or non-union of bones. The muscles, which get fractured, its elasticity comes to an end. It is wrong to say that the damage to the muscles, which occurs due to a fracture, cures automatically after some time by doing exercise. It is true to say that there is no difference in the length of the legs of the patient of Exh. P29. It is true to say that I have not brought any book with me today regarding the ascertainment of the permanent disability.” 11. Respondent No. 3 did not adduce any evidence to establish its plea that the disability certificate was fake or that the assessment made by AW 2 was not correct and that Appellant could continue to do the work with the same degree of efficiency as he was doing prior to the accident. Therefore, it is not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal and the High Court that the Appellant had not suffered permanent disability due to the fracture on his right thigh and that his working capacity did not get impaired as a result of injury caused in the accident. 12. In view of the above conclusion, we may have set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal but keeping in view the fact that a period of more than 4 years has elapsed from the date of accident and the Appellant has already suffered the loss of income, we do not consider it proper to adopt that course and are convinced that ends of justice will be served by directing the Respondent No. 3 to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000 to the Appellant by way of compensation in lieu of the loss of earning capacity due to the injury suffered in the accident and consequential disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Respondent No. 3 is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,81,200 to the Appellant within a period of two months by preparing a bank draft in his name. 13. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above.