JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This FAO is directed against the award, dated 04.05.2006, rendered by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P., in case No. 36FT/2 of 2005. 2.Key facts necessary for adjudication of this FAO are that the appellant aged 33 years has received multiple injuries in a vehicular accident on 19.07.2004 near Ambuja Chowk, Darlaghat. According to him, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HP-1 1-2203 by respondent No. 2, who was employed by respondent No. 1, as driver. The vehicle in question, i.e., truck No. HP-1 1-2203 was insured with respondent No. 3. The appellant has filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, seeking compensation of Rs. 5,70,000/-. According to the appellant, he has suffered 100% disability and now he could not drive the vehicle. 3. All the respondents filed separate replies. The accident in question was not disputed. However, it was disputed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver, i.e. respondent No. 2. They denied that the petitioner has suffered any disability. It is also denied that the petitioner has incurred a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards his treatment. According to him, the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the appellant himself. 4.The issues were framed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. has awarded a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- by way of compensation to the appellant. Hence this appeal. 5. The claimant has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. According to him, when he was driving truck No. HP-51-9722 at Ambuja Chowk, Darlaghat, a truck bearing No. HP-1 1-2203 was driven by respondent No. 2 negligently. The respondent No. 2 was driving the truck at a very high speed. He signalled the respondent No. 2 not to over take his vehicle. However, the respondent No. 2 over took the vehicle by ignoring the signal. Consequently, he received injuries on his right hand. 6.The respondent No. 2 has not appeared in the witness box. The statement of PW- 1, Hem Chand, is supported by PW-2, Desh Raj. He has also led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. However, the respondent No. 2 over took the vehicle by ignoring the signal. Consequently, he received injuries on his right hand. 6.The respondent No. 2 has not appeared in the witness box. The statement of PW- 1, Hem Chand, is supported by PW-2, Desh Raj. He has also led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. According to him, he was sitting in the same vehicle, i.e. truck driven by the appellant. He also stated that while the respondent No. 2 was trying to overtake the truck driven by the appellant, the appellant signalled the respondent No. 2 not to overtake, however, he did not care for the signal. Accordingly, the appellant received injuries. 7. The appellant has placed on record the disability certificate Ex. PZ. The disability of the appellant is permanent to the extent of 50%. 8. The loss of income of the appellant has been assessed at Rs. 500/- by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. According to the appellant, he was earning Rs. 3550/- per month and Rs. 50/- by way of daily allowance. He is owner of a truck and has also employed a driver and is paying him Rs. 3000/- by way of salary and Rs. 50/- as daily expenses. By no stretch of imagination, the loss of income of the appellant could be less than Rs. 1500/-. He was employed as a driver. Now, he cannot drive the vehicle. Though the disability of the appellant has been assessed permanent to the extent of 50%, but taking into consideration his functional disability, the same would be 100%. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has to look into the functional disability by relating it to the profession/occupation of the injured. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to the wrong conclusion that the appellant could be gainfully employed in any other profession with one hand. The respondents have not led any evidence that the appellant was gainfully employed and that even there is any likelihood of his employment. It is very difficult for a handicapped person to get a suitable job in the market. The appellant-injured has to be paid compensation for disability and also for the loss of future income. 9. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Co. It is very difficult for a handicapped person to get a suitable job in the market. The appellant-injured has to be paid compensation for disability and also for the loss of future income. 9. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 have held that the efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities. Their Lordships have held as under: “18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. 10. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman alias Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another (2011) 10 756 have held that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earning and the victim’s inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. Their Lordships have held as under: “15. Their Lordships have held as under: “15. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earning and victim’s inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.” 11.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 236 have held that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. Their Lordships have further held that the terms “disability”, as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Their Lordships have held as under: “7. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant’s earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. 8. The term “disability”, as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. 8. The term “disability”, as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case.” 12.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagarajappa Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 323 have held that the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability. The fact that the accident has left him with one useless hand will severely affect his ability to perform his work as a collie or any other manual work. This is bound to affect the quality of his work and also his ability to find work considering his disability. Their Lordships have held as under: “8. In reaching our decision, we are drawn to, if we may so, a very well-considered judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. [ (2011) 1 SCC 343 ], wherein the Bench, comprising of Hon’ble Raveendran and Gokhale, JJ., has propounded the law on compensation in motor accidents claims cases resulting in disability in a comprehensive manner. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below: “10. [ (2011) 1 SCC 343 ], wherein the Bench, comprising of Hon’ble Raveendran and Gokhale, JJ., has propounded the law on compensation in motor accidents claims cases resulting in disability in a comprehensive manner. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below: “10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. ... ...” 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 terns 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 (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [ 2010 (10) SCC 254 ] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2010 (10) SCC 341 ]. 12. xxx xxx xxx 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of “loss of future earnings”, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. 15. xxx xxx xxx 16. ... ... 15. xxx xxx xxx 16. ... ... Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to “hold an enquiry into the claim” for determining the “just compensation”. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the “just compensation”. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment...”We are in complete agreement with the abovementioned judgment. 9. On perusal of the doctor’s evidence with respect to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, the appellant was found, inter alia, to be suffering from the following disabilities as a result of the accident- “gross deformity of the left forearm, wrist and hand, wasting and weakness of the muscles of the left upper limb and shortening of the left upper limb by 1 c.m. “ As a result, the doctor stated that the appellant could not work as a coolie and could not also do any other manual work. The doctor assessed permanent residual physical disability of the upper limb at 68% and 22-23% of the whole body. 10. The appellant is working as a manual labourer, for which he requires the use of both his hands. The fact that the accident has left him with one useless hand will severely affect his ability to perform his work as a coolie or any other manual work, and this has also been certified by the doctor. Thus, while awarding compensation it has to be kept in mind that the appellant is to do manual work for the rest of his life without full use of his left hand, and this is bound to affect the quality of his work and also his ability to find work considering his disability. Hence, while computing loss of future income, disability should be taken to be 68% and not 20%, as was done by the Tribunal and the High Court. Hence, while computing loss of future income, disability should be taken to be 68% and not 20%, as was done by the Tribunal and the High Court. Our view is supported from the ratio in Raj Kumar (supra) and from the fact that the appellant is severely hampered and perhaps forever handicapped from performing his occupation as a coolie.” 13.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 267 have held that the impact/effect of permanent disability on work/earning capacity is to be judged with reference to nature of work being performed by person suffering disability. Same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. A party advocating for lower amount of compensation must plead and show victim enjoyed some legal protection which compensated victim in some other manner or had in fact changed his vocation or means of livelihood from which he was deriving certain income. Their Lordships have held as under: “8. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in pegging down the disability of the appellant to 50% with reference to Schedule 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one’s personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller. 14. The loss of earning capacity of the appellant, according to us, may be as high as 100% but in no case it would be less than 90%. We, accordingly, find and hold that the compensation for the loss of appellant’s future earnings must be computed on that basis. On calculation on that basis, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.3,56,400/- and after addition of a sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- the total amount would be Rs. 4,01,400/- The additional compensation amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The additional amount of compensation along with interest should be paid to the appellant without delay and not later than three months from today.” 14.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 604 have held that the amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity is distinct and does not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses. Their Lordships have held as under: “19. In light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity are distinct and do not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses. 15.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subulaxmi Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 177 have held that the compensation under both heads relating to permanent disability and loss of future earning is to be awarded. Their Lordships have further held that the amount awarded under permanent disability cannot be deleted. Their Lordships have emphasized that the functional disability has to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation for permanent disability. Their Lordships have held as under: “5. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts as have been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore, first we shall advert to the issue whether the High Court was justified in awarding compensation on a singular head relating to permanent disability and loss of future earning. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another [ 2012 (10) SCALE 516 ], after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Rand hir Singh [ (1990) 3 SCC 723 ] and B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. [ (2011) 6 SCC 420 ], this Court expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one head relates to the impairment of person’s capacity and the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another [ 2012 ACJ 191 ], wherein it has been laid down thus: - “The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim’s inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.” Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score is not sustainable. 9. 9. In the case at hand, the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.86,000/- towards the permanent disability. The High Court has deleted it. The said deletion as per our above discussion is impermissible. In our considered opinion regard being had to the nature of injury suffered and further taking note of the date of accident, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on this head would be appropriate and, accordingly, we so determine.” 16. In the instant case, the petitioner was employed as driver. Now, he can not drive the vehicle. He has suffered permanent disability taking into consideration his occupation. He is entitled to ‘1 lac towards permanent disability. Now, his loss of future income is to be determined. The income of the appellant can safely be assessed at Rs. 1500/- per month and Rs. 18,000/- per annum. The appellant was only 33 years of age at the time of accident. Thus, the multiplier of 17 would be suitable to work out the loss of future income. After multiplying the sum of Rs. 18,000/- by 17, the same would come to Rs. 306000/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum ofRs. ‘306000/- towards the loss of future income. 17. The injury has permanently caused pain and sufferings to the appellant and he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under this head. The appellant is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards the loss of amenities. Respondent No. 3 is liable to indemnify the owner, since the vehicle was duly insured with it. 18.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award, dated 04.05.2006, is modified to the extent that the appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 456000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. The respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of ten weeks from today.