JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.T. Pandey, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondents. 2. The only submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation taking 30% disability on the basis of the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent only, while the Tribunal ought to have applied its mind that whether the disability was in respect of any particular part of the body or in respect of whole body and what would be the effect of such disability on the earning capacity, but nothing has been considered by the Tribunal in this regard. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) TAC 785. 3. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondents, submitted that let the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal to decide afresh. 4. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 5. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another (supra), the Apex Court has laid down following principles for the determination of the compensation with reference to the disability, which reads as follows: (i) All injureis (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability.) (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can given evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 6. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 6. I have also perused the impugned order and the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Samyukt Chikitsalay, Aligarh. From perusal of the certificate, it is not clear that whether 30% disability is in respect of a particular part of the body or in respect of whole body. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another (supra), the Tribunal ought to have considered that whether the disability is in respect of a particular part of the body or in respect of whole body and what is the effect of such disability on the earning with reference to job and thereafter could have determined the disability and the compensation, which the Tribunal failed to do. 7. In view of the above, the matter requires consideration by the Tribunal. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal, Aligarh 12.12.2012, passed in MAC 727 of 2011, Uday Pratap Singh v. Banke Lal and another, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the quantum of compensation with reference to disability and the loss of income on account of such disability in accordance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another (supra). The Tribunal is further directed to decide the claim petition within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, in accordance to law. ——————