JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala dated 11th August, 2010 passed in Case No.TS(MAC)551 of 2007 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,52,840/- in favour of the claimant-respondent. 2. At the outset it may be stated that out of this very accident another MAC Appeal No.50 of 2011 was filed by the Border Road Task Force (BRTF) against the award of Rs.10,11,414/- passed in favour of the claimant Dipjoy Barua in Case No.T.S(MAC) 544 of 2007. A learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the appeal of the BRTF on merits on 09.9.2011. This award has been satisfied by the BRTF and therefore, they cannot be heard to argue in this matter that the negligence was that of the respondent. 3. It is apparent that the learned Tribunal had no concept as to how the assessment of compensation is to be made. The disability in the case is 40% that too to a particular limb and without there being any evidence of a doctor to show that the claimant has become totally disabled the learned Tribunal has held that the disability is 100%. The Apex Court In Raj Kumar vs. Ajoy Kumar, (2011)1 SCC 343 held as follows : “9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. ………………………………………………………………….. 11. If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. ………………………………………………………………….. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently 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 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) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567). ………………………………………………………………….. 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 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. ………………………………………………………………….. 15. ………………………………………………………………….. 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.” 4. Loss of disability is not always equal to loss of earning capacity. That will depend on the facts of each case. If a labourer suffers 40 to 50% disability keeping in view the fact that he is engaged in manual labour his disability could be 100% also but 40% disability of a leg or shortening of the leg does not make a labourer totally unable to earn any amount. In this case the claimant was not even a labourer. He was a mechanic i.e. he is a semiskilled person who works with his hands to repair vehicles. Such a person can continue to do such work even with the disability to his leg. 5. The claimant-respondent has produced a disability certificate whereby his disability has been assessed at 40% because of neglected mal-united fracture of the right femur with shortness and stiffness of the right leg. The learned Tribunal has held that though the disability is 40% the loss of earning capacity is 100%. I cannot accept this finding of the Tribunal. Even assuming that the claimant was a mechanic his disability of 40% is only to his leg. His efficiency may be impaired. His capacity to earn may become less but he has not become incapable of earning. Hundred per cent disability is only in those cases where a person cannot earn any amount after the accident. As far as this case is concerned, the claimant is a mechanic and the learned Tribal has assessed his income at Rs.4,000/- which I feel is reasonable. I add 50% to this amount of Rs.4,000/- taking in view his future prospects. Hundred per cent disability is only in those cases where a person cannot earn any amount after the accident. As far as this case is concerned, the claimant is a mechanic and the learned Tribal has assessed his income at Rs.4,000/- which I feel is reasonable. I add 50% to this amount of Rs.4,000/- taking in view his future prospects. Out of this I feel that the loss of earning capacity would be only 25% or Rs.1,500/- per month or Rs.18,000/- per year and since he was between 25 to 30 years old at the time accident, the maximum multiplier can be applied is ‘18’ and therefore, he is entitled to Rs.3,24,000/- future loss of income. 6. The claimant remained under treatment from 26.01.2005 to 31.01.2005. He spent Rs.4,238/- for his treatment. Keeping all these factors into view I am of the opinion that he should be awarded Rs.10,000/- for other expenses such as attendant charges special diet etc. 7. The claimant has been awarded Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering. In my opinion this is on the lower side and he is awarded Rs.10,000/- under this head. 8. The claimant has been awarded Rs.25,000/- for mental stress, frustration etc. The claimant was a young man. His leg has been shortened and he shall have to live with this disability for the rest of his life. Therefore, I award him Rs.70,000/- under this head. In addition thereto the claimant would have had spent some other expenses for transportation etc. and he is awarded Rs.10,000/- on this count. 9. The total compensation is, therefore, assessed at Rs.(3,24,000 + 10,000 + 10,000 + 70,000 + 10,000) = Rs.4,24,000/- (Rupees four lakh twenty four thousand). In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is reduced from Rs.8,52,840/- to Rs.4,24,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of this amount. 10. The appeal is disposed of. Send down the LCRs forthwith.