Judgment This Appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 10th November, 2010, passed by the Learned Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane, in M.A.C.P. No.283 of 2007, in which respondent no.1 Rajaram Bhosale was the claimant. The appellant is the Insurance Company which had insured the offending vehicle. The fact that the offending vehicle knocked respondent no.1 down, on 9.2.2007 at about 2.45 a.m. on public road, is not in doubt. 2. The first question the appellant raises in this appeal is, 'Whether the driver of the insured vehicle was negligent at the time of the accident?' The Learned Judge of the trial court after recording evidence of respondent no.1, and after perusal of police papers including spot panchnama held, that the driver of the insured vehicle was negligent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that this finding of the Learned Judge of the lower court is erroneous. I, therefore, perused evidence on record and found that there is absolutely no support to the appellant's contentions. As stated above, respondent no.1 in clear terms recorded his deposition, that while he was standing at the corner of the road, the offending vehicle came in high speed and knocked him down. The scene of offence panchnama further shows that the offending vehicle not only knocked him down, but even dashed against a standing car and damaged it. The appellant could not get any admission in cross examination whatsoever, from respondent no.1, to indicate that he himself was negligent and was crossing the road etc. The incident took place during night time and at such time, the traffic even on main road is negligible. The driver of the offending vehicle could have easily avoided any contact with any object on the road, had he been little careful. The appellant did not examine the driver of the vehicle, who could have thrown some more light on the facts of the case, because he, besides respondent no.1, had special knowledge of the accident. In absence of his evidence, an adverse inference should be drawn against him, as well as the appellant, who supports his case. 3. The second contention of the appellant is that the Learned Judge of the trial court erred, in awarding compensation, under the heads of loss of income. In absence of his evidence, an adverse inference should be drawn against him, as well as the appellant, who supports his case. 3. The second contention of the appellant is that the Learned Judge of the trial court erred, in awarding compensation, under the heads of loss of income. It has come on record that respondent no.1 was working as a watchman of a restaurant, at the time of accident. It is his case that he was earning Rs.3,000/-per month as salary. It is also his case that after the accident, he took medical treatment and after he recovered from the injuries, he went back to join his duties, and is earning same salary as before. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in view of this admission of respondent no.1 that he does not suffer any loss of income, challenged the order of compensation on account of loss of income, to the tune of Rs.1,58,400/-. 4. In order to support his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343. In this judgment, the Supreme Court dealt with this particular aspect in paragraph 11 and held as under : "11.What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation." 5. Unfortunately, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the lower court, as well as the Learned Member of the Tribunal, did not pay sufficient attention to this aspect of the case. This aspect in my view, is required to be decided with adequate evidence on either side. Such evidence was not recorded probably, such issue was not framed. Unfortunately, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the lower court, as well as the Learned Member of the Tribunal, did not pay sufficient attention to this aspect of the case. This aspect in my view, is required to be decided with adequate evidence on either side. Such evidence was not recorded probably, such issue was not framed. I am, therefore, inclined to remand the case back to the lower court, for deciding the issue 'whether the appellant suffered any functional disability due to the accident, and if the answer is in affirmative, to what extent?' 'Whether he is entitled to compensation towards loss of future income?' There is one more aspect which is not dealt with by the Learned Member. He did not award any compensation for loss of amenity to respondent no.1. So, the additional issue would be, 'whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for loss of amenity? If the answer is in affirmative, to what extent ?' These two issues are required to be decided. The case is now remanded to the lower court for deciding these two issues. The parties are allowed to lead fresh evidence. The Appeal therefore stands allowed to that extent. 6. The Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order are set aside. The Learned Member of the Tribunal shall decide the above mentioned two issues, allowing the parties to lead further evidence. 7. The appeal is pressed to challenge the compensation awarded to the appellant, on account of loss of income to the tune of Rs.1,58,400/-. The remaining amount can be conveniently handed over to the appellant. The lower court shall hand over the remaining amount of compensation deposited by the appellant with them, deducting Rs.1,58,400/-. If any amount remained deposited, over and above the amount made payable to respondent no.1, in this or in lower court, same be refunded to the appellant. 8. In view of disposal of appeal, both the Civil Applications do not survive and the same stand disposed off accordingly.