Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed on 26-11-2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. No. 99/2007. Facts leading to filing of this appeal may be stated briefly as under. 2. In the year 2006, the appellant was working as a Manager in Hotel Rimzim at Warud. On 28-11-2006, the appellant was returning home on his bicycle when one Maruti Van bearing registration no. MH-27-H-2131, being driven at very high speed, gave a dash to bicycle of the appellant. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted initially to Rural Hospital, Warud, then to Hope Hospital at Nagpur and finally to Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. He was required to take long drawn treatment for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. According to him, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle by its driver, the respondent no.1. The vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3 at the time of accident. Therefore the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondents. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record and hearing rival parties partly allowed the petition and directed respondent no.3 to pay compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- inclusive of no fault liability to the appellant together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Feeling that the compensation granted by the Tribunal was on the lower side, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. I have heard Shri P.A. Kadu, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have been only formally joined as parties here as by the impugned judgment and award, the petition has been allowed only against respondent no.3. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have been served, but they are absent. 4. Considering the submissions made before me, this appeal deserves to be admitted. Hence, admit. 5. This court by the order passed on 21-1-2014 had already put the parties on notice that this appeal would be heard finally at the admission stage and this is how the appeal is being heard finally after it has been admitted for final hearing. Now, the following points arise for my determination. Hence, admit. 5. This court by the order passed on 21-1-2014 had already put the parties on notice that this appeal would be heard finally at the admission stage and this is how the appeal is being heard finally after it has been admitted for final hearing. Now, the following points arise for my determination. (1) Whether the Tribunal has committed serious error in awarding compensation on the basis of 50% of loss of earning capacity? (2) Whether the Tribunal has committed serious error in not granting compensation for appellant’s inability to lead normal life, loss of expectations of life and future medical expenses? (3) What order? 6. Shri Kadu, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the disability certificate vide Exhibit 66 clearly shows that total permanent disability of the appellant is 70 % for both lower limbs and right forearm taken together. He has further submitted that Dr. Rushikesh Sawdekar, witness no.2 of the appellant, has also deposed in his evidence vide Exhibit 65 that due to such disability, the appellant could not do any heavy work and in future he might require surgery so as to cure the defect arising from a gap in one bone and non-union of joints of the bone. He has further submitted that the disability certificate vide Exhibit 66 indicates that there is a permanent loss of power of both lower limbs. According to him, this evidence taken together would show that the 70% disability sustained by the appellant is not only of permanent nature but would have an adverse impact on the earning capacity of the appellant in matching terms. He submits that the appellant was admittedly working as a Manager in a Hotel at the time of accident and performance of managerial duty would require lot of movements to be made so as to supervise the work of subordinate staff apart from doing of mental exercise. He submits that when power of both lower limbs is permanently lost, a Manager’s supervisory capacity would be considered reduced and reduction of his supervisory capacity would have to be taken as equivalent or corresponding to percentage of disability suffered by him. Therefore according to him, the learned Member should have determined the compensation on the basis of 70% and not 50% of loss of earning capacity. 7. Therefore according to him, the learned Member should have determined the compensation on the basis of 70% and not 50% of loss of earning capacity. 7. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that it is well established law that permanent disability of a person need not result in loss of earning capacity and even when it results in loss of earning capacity, it need not be in same percentage. He submits that in order to prove that loss of earning capacity was equivalent to the percentage of the permanent disability, the appellant ought to have produced some evidence on record, but he has not produced it. He points out from the evidence of Dr. Rushikesh Sawdekar, Exhibit 65, that even said Doctor was not aware of the concept of functional disability and he had admitted that he could not assess the functional disability. Therefore, he submits that the extent of loss of earning capacity calculated by the learned Member is correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It is seen from the evidence available on record that there is substance in the argument so advanced on behalf of respondent no.3 and no merit in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant as regards the calculation of loss of earning capacity made by the Tribunal. It is well settled law that in order to determine the extent of loss of earning capacity, what is more important is the functional disability arising from the permanent disability. Functional disability, which is the disability to earn, need not be same as permanent disability. A person may have 100% permanent disability and yet it may not result in complete loss of earning capacity. That is why the claimant is required to prove not only extent of his permanent disability but also extent of functional disability so that proper assessment of earning capacity lost by the claimant on account of injuries suffered in the accident can be made. Sometimes, there have been amputations of limbs of body and yet it has been seen that they have not resulted in loss of earning capacity. This happens especially when the claimants are doing some service or job with Government or Public Sector Undertakings or well known companies. Because of loss of limbs of the body permanently, a claimant is not removed from service, rather nature of his job is changed by his employer. This happens especially when the claimants are doing some service or job with Government or Public Sector Undertakings or well known companies. Because of loss of limbs of the body permanently, a claimant is not removed from service, rather nature of his job is changed by his employer. In such cases, there is absolutely no loss of earning capacity. Therefore, in order to claim compensation for loss of earning capacity, the law requires that the claimant must adduce specific evidence and show how the disability suffered by him, has affected his present and may be even future earning capacity. 9. In the instant case, the appellant was serving as a Manager in Hotel Rimzim at Warud. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the accident, appellant's services were terminated by the hotel management and therefore, there has been a huge loss of earning capacity for the appellant. Suffice it to state that termination of service of a person is not equal to his loss of earning capacity. Capacity is related to potentiality of a person and if one employer finds a person to be not suitable for continuation in service, it would not mean all avenues of service or job are closed for that person. His capacity and potentiality still remain there which can be always exploited by that person so as to earn a living. The appellant was previously employed as a Manager and this would show that he has managerial and administrative capacities. His permanent disability has been shown to be of 70% and it is mainly on account of loss of power of both the lower limbs. For performing managerial and administrative functions, its not only the physical power of the limbs that is required but also power of mind and that too, to a great extent, is required. Therefore, it was necessary for the appellant to have produced some evidence to show that his physical permanent disability has also affected adversely his mental power in equal measure resulting in loss of his earning capacity in equal percentage as his physical permanent disability. Such evidence has not been adduced by the appellant. On the contrary, there is an admission of Dr. Sawdekar (Exhibit 65) on record, which does not support the case of the appellant. Dr. Sawdekar has admitted that he could not assess the functional disability. Such evidence has not been adduced by the appellant. On the contrary, there is an admission of Dr. Sawdekar (Exhibit 65) on record, which does not support the case of the appellant. Dr. Sawdekar has admitted that he could not assess the functional disability. Therefore, it has to be taken that because of permanent disability, mental powers of the appellant have not been affected equally. In the absence of any evidence produced on record by the appellant showing to what extent power of his mind has been affected by his permanent disability, I do not think that the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal that the loss of earning capacity could not be taken to be more than 50% can be held to be perverse or completely erroneous. Thus, I see no error in the findings recorded in this regard by the Tribunal. 10. The next contention is that the Tribunal has not taken into account the loss of marriage prospects, inability to lead normal life and loss of expectations of life and also future medical expenses while granting compensation. It appears from perusal of the impugned judgment and award that the learned counsel for the appellant is right in this regard. The Tribunal has not considered any amount which could have been granted under these heads. The evidence on record shows that the appellant has suffered grievous injuries and also permanent disability arising from those grievous injuries to the extent of 70%. Permanent disability suffered by him relates to his inability to make full use of both of his lower limbs as well as right forearm. This would certainly show that the appellant with such disability would not be able to lead his life in a normal manner and it would also result in loss of expectations of his life which would include reduction of his marriage prospects. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Batham Vs. Munnalal Parihar and ors. reported in 2012(1) T.A.C. 12(SC) has submitted that this is a fit case, facts being almost similar, for granting of Rs.2,00,000/- for future treatment and loss of expectations of life including reduction in marriage prospects. Learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Batham Vs. Munnalal Parihar and ors. reported in 2012(1) T.A.C. 12(SC) has submitted that this is a fit case, facts being almost similar, for granting of Rs.2,00,000/- for future treatment and loss of expectations of life including reduction in marriage prospects. I do not think that amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for all these heads can be taken to be just and proper compensation in the present case for the reason that here, the appellant has been found to be a person skilled in managerial job, whereas, in the said case of Sanjay Batham, the claimant was a labourer, who mainly relied upon his physical power for earning a living. Besides, there is also no evidence available on record indicating anything about the expenses that would be required by the appellant for his future medical treatment. Therefore, in my view, in this case, an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the heads of inability to lead normal life and loss of expectations of life including reduction of marriage prospects, and an amount of Rs.20,000/- for future medical treatment, would be just and proper. 12. In view of the above discussion, point no. 1 is answered in the negative and point no. 2 is answered in terms that the Tribunal ought to have considered the grant of additional amounts on account of inability of the appellant to lead normal life, loss of expectations of life and future medical treatment and same should be Rs.70,000/- in lumpsum. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed partly with proportionate costs. Point no.3 is answered accordingly. 13. The appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. 14. In addition to the compensation granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, respondent no.3 shall also pay further amount of Rs.70,000/- to the appellant together with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of petition till final payment. 15. Decree be drawn accordingly.