JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Both the appeal and the cross objection were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. The appeal is preferred by the insurer against the judgment and award dated 5-12-2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura, in TS (MAC) No.9 of 2012 awarding a compensation of Rs. 20,60,140/- in favour of the claimant-respondent for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident. The cross-objection is filed by the claimant-respondent for enhancement of the compensation so awarded in the impugned judgment. 2. Before proceeding further, it may be appropriate to refer to the material facts of the case. The case of the claimant-respondent (“the claimant” for short) is that on 10-11-2011, the motor bike he was riding with one Manir Hussain, was knocked down by one TATA Truck bearing registration No. TR-01-R-1759 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner at Chandigarh. At that time, they were standing on the road side with the bike. As a result, he collapsed on the ground and sustained several serious injuries and was rushed to Melaghar Hospital in a senseless condition whereafter he was shifted to GPB Hospital, Agartala and was treated there from 10-11-2011 to 12-11-2011. He was then referred to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata for better treatment, but due to non-availability of bed, he had to be admitted to AMRI Hospital, Kolkata as indoor patient up to 5-12-2011. Due to the accident, he sustained grievous fractures on his right hand, upper limb, right formal shaft fracture, C2 spine fracture and other injuries on different parts of his body. He also had to undergo major surgery in which his right hand in the middle was amputated. As a result, he became physically disabled to the extent of 85%. He continued to be treated even after his discharge from the hospital. He, therefore, filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 35,80,000/-. The police registered Melaghar PS Case No.103/2011 under Sections 279/338 IPC against the driver of the TATA Truck and after investigating the case, they, having found a prima facie case, charge-sheeted the driver of the offending vehicle to face the trial. 3. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer by filing their respective written statements. 3. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer by filing their respective written statements. Both the contesting parties denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and that they had no liability to pay the compensation claimed either jointly or severally. The insurer asserted that the compensation claimed was imaginary, speculative and excessive. The owner of the offending vehicle, however, pointed out that his vehicle was insured with the insurer and if any award was passed by the Tribunal, it was the responsibility of the insurer to satisfy the award. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the claimant-petitioner sustained injuries in a vehicular accident which took place on 10-11-2011 at about 3 PM at Chandigarh near east side of Masjid under Melaghar Police Station involving the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-R-1759 (TATA Truck) due to rash and negligent driving by its driver? 2. Whether the claimant-petitioner is entitled to get compensation under the Provisions of MV Act? If so, to what extent and who shall be held liable to pay the same?” 4. To prove his case, the claimant examined himself and exhibited documents such as certified copies of the FIR, ejahar, charge-sheet, injury report, original discharge certificates, prescriptions, various reports, cash memos, bills, air tickets, original citizenship and his income certificate, certificate of handicapped person, photo copy of his driving licence, etc. as Exbt.1 series. Neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver adduced their evidence but exhibited some documents such as registration certificate, tax token, driving licence, route permit, screen report, temporary and insurance policy certificate as Exbt. A series. The insurer did not adduce oral or documentary evidence to substantiate its defence. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment. 5. A series. The insurer did not adduce oral or documentary evidence to substantiate its defence. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment. 5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence such as the FIR, charge sheet filed by the police and the injury report and other evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal came to the findings that rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver was the proximate cause of the vehicular accident and but for the rash and negligence by its driver, the accident would not have occurred and that as a result of the vehicular accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries, which resulted in amputation of his right hand. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,02,905/-as the costs of the medicines, CT Scan charges. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as the attendant cost for the claimant for a period of 25 days @ Rs. 200/- per day. As the claimant was referred by the Board to go to Kolkata for better treatment, the Tribunal allowed reimbursements for the air tickets and, accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs. 62,032/- as the costs of the return tickets for Kolkata. The Tribunal further recorded the findings that the claimant was a businessman-cum-cultivator and that his monthly income, on the basis of the Income Certificate issued by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Sonamura Revenue Circle, was Rs. 8,000/- per month at the time of the accident. The Tribunal took the view that due to the injuries sustained by the claimant, he might have to discontinue his profession for five months and accordingly awarded Rs. 40,000/- i.e. Rs. 8,000/- x 5 = Rs. 40,000/-towards financial loss for five months. On the basis of the Disability Certificate dated 1-2-2012 (Exbt.1 series) issued by the District Disability Board certifying that there was amputation of right hand with the percentage of his disability to the extent of 85%, the Tribunal opined that the loss of earning capacity of the claimant was also 85%. The Tribunal also found the age of the claimant to fall within the age group of 26 years and 30 years. On the basis of the age of the claimant, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17 and determined his permanent loss of earning to be Rs. The Tribunal also found the age of the claimant to fall within the age group of 26 years and 30 years. On the basis of the age of the claimant, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17 and determined his permanent loss of earning to be Rs. 8,000/- x 12 x 17 x 85% = 13,87,200/- for sustaining disability to the extent of 85%. It also awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards conveyance charges for undergoing treatment at Agartala. It also awarded the incidental cost of Rs. 10,000/- for going to Kolkata accompanied by escorts and another sum of Rs. 50,000/-as non-pecuniary damages, i.e. pain and sufferings, mental stress agony, discomfort and inconvenience on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in RD Hatangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & ors., AIR 1995 SC 755 . Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total of Rs. 20,60,137/- (Rs. 5,02,905/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 62,032/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 13,87,200/- + Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 50,000/-) say Rs. 20,60,140/- as compensation to the claimant. As the vehicle was insured with the appellant, the Tribunal fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon the appellant-insurer. Dissatisfied with the award, both the insurer and the claimant preferred the appeal and the cross-objection respectively. 6. Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, drawing my attention to the failure of the claimant to produce his professional tax challans, trade licence, book of accounts/trading accounts, vehemently submits that in the absence of any authentic/valid document to prove his income, the Tribunal arbitrarily assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 8,000/- per month simply on the basis of the so-called Income Certificate issued by the Deputy Collector/Magistrate, Sonamura Revenue Circle, which has no evidentiary value as the Deputy Collector has no competence to issue such certificate. He also contends that the amputation of the right hand of the claimant in the middle, even if the Disability Board certified it to be 85% disability, could not necessarily lead to loss of earning capacity to the extent of 85%; the Tribunal has overlooked the difference between physical disability and loss of earning capacity for assessing the quantum of compensation as held by the Apex Court in several cases. He also submits that the Tribunal should have insisted that claimant should prove with medical evidence that he has not only discontinued his former occupation but could not get an alternative means of livelihood due to his physical disability. He, therefore, argues that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is, therefore, based on no evidence and is otherwise excessive, unfair and disproportionate to the disability sustained by the claimant and should be interfered with by this Court. In support of his various contentions, the learned counsel for the insurer relies on Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330 ; Raj Kumar and another v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 ; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir, (2009) 6 SCC 280 and Syed Basheer Ahamed and others v. Mohammad Jameel and another, (2009) 2 SCC 225 . 7. Mr. Shankar Deb, the learned senior counsel for the cross-objector and the claimant-respondent in the appeal, also attacks the impugned judgment on the ground that the Tribunal was too economical in awarding the compensation under different heads by ignoring the various parameters laid down by the Apex Court for awarding just compensation. According to him, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant to the extent of 100% and not 85% as he has no way of getting alternative employment for the rest of his life and illegally awarded a sum of Rs. 16,32,000/- (Rs. 8000/- X 12 X 17) for loss of earning capacity. He further submits that the Tribunal has misdirected itself by awarding interest @ 8% whereas the recent trend of the law is the award of interest @ 12% per annum and by not awarding Rs. 50,000/- for future medical expenses. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel that the Tribunal has failed to take note of the recent decisions of the Apex Court awarding Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of amenities for the rest of the life of the claimant/cross-objector. He also argues that the award of Rs. 3,000/- for conveyance charges is too less when the claimant had to be carried by vehicle for two days during his treatment at Agartala and for 24 days in Kolkata from his place of stay to the Hospitals, for which a minimum of Rs. 20,000/- is required. He also argues that the award of Rs. 3,000/- for conveyance charges is too less when the claimant had to be carried by vehicle for two days during his treatment at Agartala and for 24 days in Kolkata from his place of stay to the Hospitals, for which a minimum of Rs. 20,000/- is required. Finally, he submits that the Tribunal has failed to add 50% of his salary for future prospects thereby denying him just and fair compensation. He, therefore, strenuously urges that the appeal be dismissed, the cross-objection be allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to Rs. 26,15,000/- from Rs. 20,60,140/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Strong reliance is placed by him on the following decisions of the Apex Court to fortify his submissions: Jakir Hussain v. Sabir and another, (2015) 7 SCC 252 ; Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, (2015) 6 SCC 347 ; Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar and others, (2012) 2 SCC 267 and Mohd. Nasir case (supra). 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties and on perusing the impugned judgment and other materials on record, the first point for consideration is, whether the Tribunal is correct in assessing the income of the claimant as Rs. 8,000/per month at the time of the accident. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant insurer, apart from the self serving statement of the claimant, no documentary evidence could be produced by claimant to substantiate his claim that he was earning Rs. 8,000/per month. In his examination-in-chief by affidavit, he deposed that he completed Post Graduate Degree in MA (History) from Maulana Azad University under the State Madrassa Education Board, Hyderabad and also completed other degrees. However, he deposed that he ran Grocery Business, had some landed property and earned Rs. 12,000/- per month from all sources, for which he obtained income certificate from DCM, Sonamura Office. He, however, on the next sentence mentioned that his income was Rs. 8,000/- per month as determined by the Revenue authority. As submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer, no proof such as Trade Licence to run the grocery business, professional tax challans or books of account/trading account could be produced by the claimant to substantiate his claim that he was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month as determined by the Revenue authority. As submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer, no proof such as Trade Licence to run the grocery business, professional tax challans or books of account/trading account could be produced by the claimant to substantiate his claim that he was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. It is true that the claimant who belongs to un-organised sector cannot be expected to produce authentic income certificate issued by a competent authority. The Apex Court, however, observed in Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236 : “14.We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time.” 9. Section 58 of the Evidence Act provides that no fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, but then the proviso to this section also confers a discretion upon Courts to require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions. In the instant case, the assertion of income of Rs. 8,000/- made by the claimant is undoubtedly not denied by the insurer in their cross-examination. But then, in the absence of any documentary evidence such as professional tax challans or trade certificate/licence issued by the competent authority to prove that the claimant actually ran a grocery business or books of account or trading licence, it is not possible to accept his claim that he was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month at the time of the accident. In my opinion, when he cannot even prove with documentary evidence that he was running a grocery business, it will be too hazardous to accept such claim; it is simply exorbitant. True, some element of guesswork depending on the ground realities at the relevant point of time can always be resorted, but in a case of this nature, to guesstimate that he would be earning Rs. True, some element of guesswork depending on the ground realities at the relevant point of time can always be resorted, but in a case of this nature, to guesstimate that he would be earning Rs. 8,000/- per month in the year 2011 simply on the basis of his self-serving statement will be inappropriate and hazardous. If proper assessment of the income of the claimant cannot be arrived at, just compensation cannot be assessed or paid either. The Apex Court in Rajesh case (supra) held: “5.The expression “just compensation” has been explained in Sarla Verma case, (2009) 6 SCC 121 holding that the compensation awarded by a Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. After surveying almost all the previous decisions, the Court almost standardised the norms for the assessment of damages in motor accident claims.” 10. After taking all aspects of the matter, it is my inevitable conclusion that the monthly income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 8,000/- has no basis and is on the higher side considering the scanty evidence produced by him and that his correct monthly income at the time of accident could be reasonably assessed at Rs. 6,000/- per month. This then takes me to the next point for consideration, namely, whether the physical disability of the claimant to the extent of 85% would necessarily lead to loss of his earning capacity to the extent of 100%? As already noticed, the Tribunal recorded the finding that there was amputation of his right arm above upper 1/3rd with the percentage of his disability extending to 85% and that the loss of his earning capacity should also correspondingly be to the extent of 85%. As already noticed, the Tribunal recorded the finding that there was amputation of his right arm above upper 1/3rd with the percentage of his disability extending to 85% and that the loss of his earning capacity should also correspondingly be to the extent of 85%. The principles for assessing the correlation between the physical disability suffered in a vehicular accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it have been explained by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar case (supra), which are in the following terms: “11.What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent 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 terms 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 the 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 SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 341 12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement; (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 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 disability (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.” 11. In my opinion, considering his occupation before he met with the accident, i.e. running a grocery business, it cannot be said that it would be impossible for him to continue his business with one arm left. Therefore, the Tribunal is not correct in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the claimant to the extent of 85%. In my judgment, his loss of earning capacity would be 75%. The above finding of the Tribunal, therefore, calls for the interference of this Court. The cross-objector shall also be entitled to future income of 30% as he is below 40 years and did not have a permanent job. So, his monthly income could be assessed at Rs. 6000/- + Rs. 1,800/- = Rs. 7,800/- . Therefore, the loss of earning capacity of the cross-objector comes to Rs. 7,800/- X 12 X 17 X 75% = Rs. So, his monthly income could be assessed at Rs. 6000/- + Rs. 1,800/- = Rs. 7,800/- . Therefore, the loss of earning capacity of the cross-objector comes to Rs. 7,800/- X 12 X 17 X 75% = Rs. 11,93,400/-, to which shall added conveyance allowances for 26 days amounting to Rs. 20,000/-, future medical expenses of Rs. 25,000/-, discomfort and loss of amenities to the order of Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The total amount of compensation payable to the cross-objector will, therefore, stand reduce to Rs. 11,93,400/- + Rs. 5,02,905/- + Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 62,032/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 19,48,337/- , i.e. a reduction of Rs. 1,11,803/-. The cross-objector will, however, be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition as awarded by the Apex Court in recent times. 12. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall now pay a sum of Rs. 19,48,337/- as compensation to the claimant-cross-objector instead of Rs. 20,60,140/- as awarded by the Tribunal together with interest calculated at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of claim petition. The deposit shall be made by the insurer with this Registry within a period of two months from the date of the claim petition minus the amount already deposited for payment to the claimant/cross-objector. As and when the entire amount of compensation awarded herein is deposited by the appellant, fifty per cent shall be released to the claimant on satisfying the usual condition without further reference to this Court, while the remaining amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit with any nationalized Bank for a period of five years. The yearly interest so accrued shall be paid to the claimant as per the usual arrangements of the Bank. 13. The impugned judgment stands modified to the extent and in the manner indicated above. Both the appeal and cross-objection are accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No cost. Transmit the LC record.