JUDGMENT 1. - The Oriental Insurance Company is aggrieved by the award dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the learned Tribunal', for short) whereby the learned tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 13,88,239/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimant-respondent No.1. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Deepak Kumar, respondent No.1, filed a claim petition wherein he claimed that on 08.08.2007, around 6 o' clock in the evening, while he was returning from Bichiwara Ashapura Temple, a truck, bearing Registration No. HR-66-B-2997, came at a high speed from behind and hit him. The truck ran over his left leg thereby crushing it. Initially, he was medically examined at Bichiwara and subsequently had to be rushed to Gujarat. During his treatment, his left leg had to be amputated from below the left knee. Moreover, according to him, at the time of the accident, he was thirty years old and was running a shop in the name and style of M/s. Deepak Traders; he was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. However, due to the said accident, he is unable to carry out the running of his business as he has suffered 75% of disablement. 3. The Insurance Company submitted its reply and merely claimed that the compensation amount prayed by respondent is on the higher side. Moreover, there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver. 4. In order to buttress his case, the respondent No.1 examined himself as a witness and submitted thirtyseven documents. The Insurance Company neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company. 5. Mr. Anil Bachhawat, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that according to the disability certificate (Ex.-32), the respondent has suffered merely 75% of disability. While calculating the 'loss of dependency', the learned Tribunal has treated the case as it were a case of total permanent disability rather than a partial permanent disability. According to the learned counsel merely because the respondent had lost part of his left leg, it is not a case of total permanent disability. While calculating the 'loss of dependency', the learned Tribunal has treated the case as it were a case of total permanent disability rather than a partial permanent disability. According to the learned counsel merely because the respondent had lost part of his left leg, it is not a case of total permanent disability. Considering the fact that he had suffered 75% of disability, the learned Tribunal should have taken recourse to Item No.5, sub-clause(b) of Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the loss of income suffered by the respondent. In fact, the total amount calculated by the learned Tribunal should have been further reduced by 25%. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has paid 25% more than what the respondent deserved. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Pareek, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, has strenuously argue that a bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that while calculating the loss of income, the learned Tribunal has, in fact, deducted one-third of the income as the amount that the injured would have spent upon himself. According to the learned Tribunal, the annual income of the injured was Rs. 96,550/-. From the said amount, the learned Tribunal deducted one-third i.e., Rs. 32,183/- and concluded that the loss of income on an annual basis is merely Rs. 64,367/-. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has, in fact, deducted more than 25%. In fact, the learned Tribunal has deducted 33%. Hence, it is the injured who has suffered a loss and not the Insurance Company. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the impugned award does not deserve to be interfered with. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has noticed the fact that the respondent has submitted a disability certificate (Ex.- 32). According to the said certificate, the respondent had suffered a disability of merely 75%. Since it was not a disability of 100%, obviously it is a case of partial permanent disability. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has noticed the fact that the injured had submitted his income-tax returns (Ex.-33) and (Ex.-34). According to Ex.34, his income was Rs. 1,48,900/- per annum. However, according to income-tax returns (Ex.-35), after the accident, his income had reduced to merely Rs. 52,350/-. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has noticed the fact that the injured had submitted his income-tax returns (Ex.-33) and (Ex.-34). According to Ex.34, his income was Rs. 1,48,900/- per annum. However, according to income-tax returns (Ex.-35), after the accident, his income had reduced to merely Rs. 52,350/-. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has concluded, and rightly so, that the injured had suffered a loss of Rs. 96,550/- due to the accident. The learned Tribunal has further deducted one-third amount from the said amount of Rs. 96,550/-. Therefore, while calculating the loss of income, the learned Tribunal has reduced the amount by 33%. Even if the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant were accepted, even then the Insurance Company continues to be a gainer. For, the loss of income should have been reduced only by 25% whereas the learned Tribunal has already reduced it by one-third. Therefore, the Insurance Company, in fact, gains by 8%. Hence, the Insurance Company possibly cannot be aggrieved by the impugned award. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal; it is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******