JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the insurance company. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.2011 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (MAC) No.365 of 2007 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,41,800/- along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of the claim petition on the ground that the award is disproportionate to be loss suffered by her. 3. The facts of the case are virtually not in dispute. The appellant was a daily labourer and claims to earn Rs.4,000/- to 5,000/- per month at the time of accident. She was also aged about 41 years. The fact that she sustained Post Traumatic Claw in the right hand to the extent of physical disability assessed at 60% by the District Disability Board, West Tripura. The sole question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the earning capacity of the appellant has been affected to the extent of 100% in the light of the disability sustained by her or not. To determine this issue, Dr. Dipti Bikash Roy, Locomotor Specialist was asked to appear and has appeared before me on 16.11.2016 in the presence of both the learned counsel for the appellant and the insurance company. He was examined by me and gave his opinion that in the nature of the disability suffered by her, she could perform the work of watchman, could give tuition and could perform left hand work, but she cannot perform the following jobs:- (a) cooking by right hand, (b) washing and threshing of cloth, (c) carrying weight by right hand, (d) lifting overhead object, remove and placing at the same place, (e) eating in Indian style, (f) putting button in shirt and kurta by right hand, (g) taking drinking water glass, (h) writing and painting and (i) playing Harmonium or other musical instruments. He, however, informed us that her entire body is not incapacitated. Apparently, the claimant is an illiterate person and was a daily labourer to earn her livelihood before the accident. He, however, informed us that her entire body is not incapacitated. Apparently, the claimant is an illiterate person and was a daily labourer to earn her livelihood before the accident. After considering the functional disabilities sustained by her as pointed out by the Locomotor Specialist, I am of the view that though her entire body is not incapacitated, it would be extremely difficult for her to switch over to other occupations at this to earn her livelihood as she did before. 4. I have carefully noted the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 . In my opinion, the future earning capacity of the appellant has been affected to the extent of 100% due to the vehicular accident. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal has to be modified by not deducting 60%. Thus, her annual income being Rs.36,000/- if multiplied by 14 comes to Rs.5,04,000/-, to which shall be added a sum of Rs.10,000/- as miscellaneous expenses thereby, making the amount of compensation to Rs.5,14,000/-. 5. Resultantly, the respondent No.2 is directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.5,14,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs fourteen thousand) together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment within 2 (two) months from today. The amount already deposited or paid to the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. Needless to say, as and when the remaining amount is deposited, the same shall be released to the appellant after satisfying the usual conditions without further reference of this Court. 6. The appeal stands disposed of. Transmit the L.C. records to the learned Tribunal forthwith.