Judgment : 1. Heard rival arguments at length on this appeal preferred by the appellant/original claimant challenging the Judgment and Award passed by on 16/10/2008 by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji (M.A.C.T, for short). 2. By the impugned Judgment and Award the present appellant/claimant was granted compensation for his personal injuries to the tune of Rs.62,740/-and the respondents no.1, 2, and 3 were directed to jointly and severally pay the said compensation to the claimant along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of the entire amount. It was also directed that the amount of Rs.25,000/- already paid to the claimant under section 140 of the M.V. Act was to be adjusted from the final payment. 3. Being aggrieved by the said amount of compensation, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant/appellant. 4. Prior to appreciating the rival submissions the basis on which the Member of the M.A.C.T, Panaji came to the conclusion of grant of compensation is required to be mentioned. Without going in much details as to the calculations, suffice it to say that the Member of the M.A.CT had taken the following amounts towards different heads on: (i) Rs.7250/- towards actual medical bills. (ii) Rs.1800/- towards conveyance-taxi fare for coming to the hospital etc. (iii) Rs.5000/- towards the personal assistance required by the claimant to assist him during the period of his treatment. (iv) Rs.850/- towards purchase of pair of crutches. (v) Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. (vi) Rs.18,000/- towards loss of salary for six months at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month. 5. Over and above, apart from the above amounts, the learned Member, M.A.C.T, Panaji, calculated the monthly earning of the claimant to the extent of Rs.3000/- though in the claim petition the amount of Rs.6000/- to Rs.7000/-was claimed. The learned Tribunal by placing reliance on the evidence of the Medical Officer and the documentary evidence by way of 5% permanent disability certainly came to the conclusion of future loss on earning for about 11 years considering the age of the claimant and for that purpose took the monthly earning of the claimant as Rs.3000/- and calculated the said future loss of 11 years considering the multiplier of 11 based on the age of the claimant being around 54-55 years. By summing up the above amounts the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion of quantum of total compensation of Rs.62,740/-. 6. Now bearing in mind the above calculations arrived at by the learned member of the Tribunal, the rival arguments can be construed. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submitted that the amount of Rs.5000/-awarded against the service of the attendant is on the lower side and the said amount should have been Rs.15,400/- as mentioned in the certificate given by the said attendant who has already been examined as witness, who is CW.3. 8. It is also argued on behalf of the claimant that the amount of monthly earning is also taken much on the lower side also half of it had to be taken as Rs.6000/- to Rs.7000/-. On this aspect, much is argued by placing reliance on the evidence of CW.4 i.e. the owner of the motor garage where the appellant was working for the period of 6 years or so and after the accident the appellant lost the job due to his physical disability as he was unable to squat and sit down due to compound fracture of right tibia fibula of the right leg. It is further argued that if the monthly earnings are considered as Rs.6000/-per month than definitely the appellant is entitled for higher compensation almost double, as major chunk of the compensation is based on the monthly earning of the claimant/appellant. 9. Counter to the above contentions, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/Insurance company vehemently assailed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and further submitted that even the compensation of Rs.5000/-awarded towards the employment of an attendant is in fact generously given by the member of the M.A.C.T. To substantiate this attention of this Court is drawn to the substantive evidence of the said attendant wherein he had mentioned the date of the accident as 15/1/2005, whereas the actual date of the accident is 15/3/2005. By pointing out this it is strenuously argued that this witness is a got up witness and had never attended as an attendant and never gave any receipt for any amount of Rs.15,400/-. On this aspect, the reasoning given by the learned member of the M.A.C.T is gone into which is appearing in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment and award. On this aspect, the reasoning given by the learned member of the M.A.C.T is gone into which is appearing in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment and award. The learned member had carefully considered this apparent discrepancy regarding the date of the accident however, still he considered the contents of Exhibit 37 which is a receipt under the signature of said attendant. The said receipt does mention the correct date of the accident and this aspect has been rightly appreciated by the learned member. However, the total of Rs.15,000/-has not been awarded by the Tribunal as it mainly considered the requirement of the attendant when the appellant/claimant had suffered only 5% physical disability and compound fracture of tibia fibula of the right leg and hospitalized for 5 days. 10. In the opinion of this Court on this aspect, the learned member M.A.C.T has rightly appreciated and awarded the compensation instead of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.5000/- and there cannot be any dispute in that regard. Even in the opinion of this Court, there cannot be any dispute so far as the award of Rs.7250/- towards actual medical expenditure, Rs.18,000/- towards taxi and conveyance, Rs.5000/- towards the attendant's expenses, Rs.850/-towards the purchase of pair of crutches. Now this leads to determine the compensation on other heads i.e. for pain and suffering, loss of salary for six months and future loss leading to physical disability of 5%. 11. On the above aspects, much is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that 5% permanent disability as alleged by the medical evidence always cannot affect the earning capacity of a person. Broadly there cannot be any dispute on this proposition. However, the avocation of a person, the effect of physical disability and the age of the injured are guiding factors which will determine whether earning capacity would be reduced by 5% or more or not at all. If a clerk would be doing clerical work in an office mainly having the work at the table and chair then 5% physical disability on the leg may not affect his earning capacity much when he is not removed from the work. However, this aspect is to be considered with respect to workman. If a clerk would be doing clerical work in an office mainly having the work at the table and chair then 5% physical disability on the leg may not affect his earning capacity much when he is not removed from the work. However, this aspect is to be considered with respect to workman. For a mechanic in the present case who worked with his hands and also at times with his legs and was required to squat, sit and even go underneath the vehicle, this aspect of physical disability is of vital importance. There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to how much physical disability will affect the claimant on his future earning. As mentioned earlier, the age of the injured and his avocation are the guiding aspects. In this matter, the claimant/appellant was about 54-55 years of age when the accident occurred and it is assumed and accepted by the trial court and also by this Court that he was working as a mechanic. Working as a mechanic, he is required to squat or sit when need arises to repair the vehicle. Under such circumstances, always the physical disability cannot be equated with the loss of the earning. In the considered opinion of this Court the loss of earning is required to be construed even more than 5% and possibly for 10% considering the age of the person. As such, taking the multiplier of 11 and even accepting the monthly earning of the appellant/claimant as Rs.3000/- per month, the loss of future earning is to be calculated not by taking the 5% disability but double the same. Under these circumstances, it needs to be enhanced only on the aspect of the future loss considering the monthly earning as Rs.3000/- and multiplier of 11 and 10% financial loss. As such, only this figure will double, rest other figures remaining the same. As such, adding all the above referred different amounts under different heads to the loss of future earnings, the total compensation comes to Rs.82,000/- and odd. As such, the total compensation is rounded to Rs. As such, only this figure will double, rest other figures remaining the same. As such, adding all the above referred different amounts under different heads to the loss of future earnings, the total compensation comes to Rs.82,000/- and odd. As such, the total compensation is rounded to Rs. 85,000/-with appropriate rate of interest as awarded by the learned member of the M.A.C.T. As such, the present appeal is allowed to the above extent and the total compensation payable by the original respondents no.1, 2 and 3 i.e. the present respondents is to the tune of Rs.85,000/-(Rupees Eighty Five thousand only) to be jointly and severally paid by the said respondents at the rate of 9% from the date of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. If any amount of the compensation as per the impugned Judgment and award has been paid the said amount shall be adjusted. Rest other order of the learned Member of the M.A.C.T shall sustain.