JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- This is an appeal brought by Raj Singh, the claimant against the award dated 6.8.2010 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, [Fast Track Court], Karnal (for short, “the Tribunal”) dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claim petition did not lie under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, “the Act”] because the permanent disablement is not as per the definition of the same given in Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 [for short, “1923 Act”]. 2. The claim petition had been brought under section 163-A of the Act. It is a case where the claimant was alleged to have suffered permanent disability to the extent of 17%. On the question as to whether this case falls within the purview of section 163-A of the Act, it has been held that the permanent disability in this case is not as per the definition of the expression given in the 1923 Act and, therefore, issue No.2 has been decided against the claimant holding that the claimant is not entitled to compensation under section 163-A of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the disablement is 17%. According to him, on such disablement, compensation has been awarded in two earlier decisions of this court titled as Jatinder Kumar Vs. Kharak Singh and others, FAO No. 852 of 2005, decided on 10.10.2012 and Jatin Vs. Executive Officedr, MC Ambala City and others, FAO No. 6961 of 2011, decided on 24.7.2013. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that the decision of learned Tribunal is fully justified and valid. According to him, the case is not covered under section 163-A of the Act and, therefore, no interference with the award is justified. 5. Section 163-A of the Act covers death and permanent disablement. The explanation appended to this section clarifies that permanent disability, as required by section 163-A of the Act, would have the same meaning and extent as in the 1923 Act. Partial disablement and permanent disablement stand defined in section 2(g) of the 1923 Act. It lays down that the disablement mentioned in Part II of Schedule I would qualify for permanent disability under the provisions of the 1923 Act. Partial disablement and permanent disablement stand defined in section 2(g) of the 1923 Act. It lays down that the disablement mentioned in Part II of Schedule I would qualify for permanent disability under the provisions of the 1923 Act. However, under the aforesaid definition in section 2(g) of 1923 Act, disablement is not confined to Part II of Schedule I. But, the definition of permanent disablement in this section is quite narrow because it requires proof of the fact that such disablement must reduce the earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time. 6. The disability in the case in hand is 17% on account of fracture of left leg bones with limping alongwith operated case of left humerus. This disability cannot prove the aforesaid requirement. It has not been proved in this case that the disability would have reduced the earning capacity of the claimant in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time. 7. The decisions cited above have no application to the facts of this case. In the cited cases, the question raised in this case had not been raised and, therefore, there is no law laid down in these decisions which may help the appellant. 8. In these circumstances, I find no fault with the finding of learned Tribunal recorded on issue No. 2. Therefore, the said finding is upheld and finding no merit in the appeal, I dismiss the same. ---------0.B.S.0------------