JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Lodh, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharji, the learned counsel for the insurance company. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No. 264 of 2010 awarding a compensation of Rs.4,40,064/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition, to the appellant. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 27.05.2010, the appellant along with one Babul Debnath of Noagaon was proceeding towards his house, riding in a motor bike on the left side of the road with normal speed, a Mini bus bearing registration No. TR-01-A-1243 dashed against his bike at Chandrapur near Masjid at about 20.30 hours for which both the appellant and pillion rider fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. According to the appellant, the mini bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. The appellant was thereafter treated, firstly at Agartala and thence to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata but was eventually admitted at AMRI Hospital, Salt Lake, Kolkata when he could not be admitted at SSKM Hospital due to shortage of seat. He was treated as indoor patient there from 31.05.2010 to 15.06.2010 and was operated upon. In connection with this accident, East Agartala Police Station Case No. 105/2010 under Section 279/338 of IPC was registered. The appellant claimed that he became disabled due to the accident. The appellant was stated to be 26 years old at the time of accident and was a goldsmith by profession and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. He, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.20,35,000/- along with interest. 4. The claim petition was contested by both the owner and the insurance company. The owner categorically denied that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and if at all any compensation is to be paid, it should be paid by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd to which the vehicle was duly insured at the time of the accident. The insurance company in their written statement contended that no documentary proof was produced by the appellant to substantiate his claim and that all the allegations made are baseless and without any foundation. 5. The insurance company in their written statement contended that no documentary proof was produced by the appellant to substantiate his claim and that all the allegations made are baseless and without any foundation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed following issues: “(i) Whether the claimant petitioner sustained injury in a road traffic accident occurred on 27.05.2010 at about 2010 hours at Chandrapur near Masjid on Assam-Agartala road under P.S-East Agartala due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-A-1243 (Bus) (ii) Whether the claimant petitioner is entitled to get any compensation under the provision of M.V. Act, 1988. If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same.” The appellant examined himself as PW-1 to substantiate his claim. Some documents such as FIR, ejahar, injury report, MVI report, charge sheet, original cash memos etc. by firisti dated 14.05.2012 were produced and exhibited. The appellant also examined one Animesh Chowdhury as PW-2 to corroborate his statement. The insurance company or the owner of the vehicle did not adduce any evidence to rebut the claims of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant was aged 26 years at the time of the accident and that he was working as goldsmith and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of the accident. According to the Tribunal, the fact that the appellant sustained open fracture right femur and segmental fracture tibia fibula(R) and head injury is not disputed. Therefore, it could be presumed that he would not be able to pursue his goldsmiths work at least for six months and, accordingly, awarded Rs.30,000/- thousand for the loss of income. The Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, discomfort and mental agony. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,48,300/- as cost of his treatment and another Rs.56,764/- as cost of air tickets. According to the Tribunal, the loss of earning suffered by the appellant would come to Rs.60,000/- on the basis of his 20% disability for five years. He also awarded Rs.15,000/- for misc. expenses like fooding, lodging etc. The total compensation so awarded to the appellant, thus, comes to Rs.4,40,064/-. 6. According to the Tribunal, the loss of earning suffered by the appellant would come to Rs.60,000/- on the basis of his 20% disability for five years. He also awarded Rs.15,000/- for misc. expenses like fooding, lodging etc. The total compensation so awarded to the appellant, thus, comes to Rs.4,40,064/-. 6. Since this is a case of physical disability, the first point for consideration is the extent of loss of earning capacity of the appellant resulting from the injury sustained by him in the vehicular accident. As no finding to this effect was properly made by the Tribunal, the medical specialist in the field of Locomotor was asked to lead evidence before this Court. The doctor namely, Dipti Bikash Roy, who is also a Member Secretary, DDRC (West) in his evidence, stated that the appellant cannot bend his right knee due to stiffness and that he would not be able to fold his right leg during his professional work. On cross-examination by the counsel for the insurer, the Member Secretary, however, admitted that the appellant could sit in a chair but can no longer perform the work of a goldsmith because of the stiffness in his right leg. On further cross-examination, he also admitted that the appellant would be able to work with his hand by using a table sitting in a chair, but it would be difficult for him to perform the work. He denied the suggestion that since the physical disability is only to the extent of 30%, the appellant would still perform the work of a goldsmith. From the evidence adduced by the Locomotor Specialist, I am of the view that the work of goldsmith could still be performed by the appellant by using a table and sitting in a chair, even though it will be somewhat difficult as he used to do earlier. In my opinion, on the basis of this evidence, it will not be wide of the mark to say that the loss of earning capacity of the appellant will be to the extent of 60%. 7. It may also be noted that the District Disability Board, West Tripura has certified that the disability was for a period of 5 years. In my opinion, on the basis of this evidence, it will not be wide of the mark to say that the loss of earning capacity of the appellant will be to the extent of 60%. 7. It may also be noted that the District Disability Board, West Tripura has certified that the disability was for a period of 5 years. Though the disability of the appellant was certified to be valid only for five years, in my opinion, considering the fact that his disability was also certified to be “progressive”, it can be safely said that there is no possibility of his returning to normalcy. This being the factual position as found by me, I am of the view that the loss of earning capacity of the appellant can be calculated as follows: as the monthly income of the appellant is fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month, his annual income will come to Rs.60,000/-. As the appellant was 26 years at the time of accident, a multiplier of 17 shall have to be adopted i.e. Rs.60,000 x 17=10,20,000/-. As loss of earning capacity is taken to be 60%, 60% of Rs.10,20,000/- comes to Rs.6,12,000/-. To this amount shall be added Rs.15,000/- for misc. expenses like fooding, lodging, Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.2,48,300/- for cost of his treatment, Rs.56,764/- for cost of air fair and another sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.10,12,064/-. 8. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of to Rs.10,12,064/- (rupees ten lakhs twelve thousand and sixty four) together with interest @ 7 % per annum with effect from the date of the claim petition with this Registry within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Any amount already paid or deposited by the respondent-insurance company shall be adjusted accordingly. 9. It is made clear that as and when the aforesaid amount is deposited, the same shall be released to the appellant as per usual arrangements without further reference from this Court. The impugned award stands modified in the manner and to the extent indicated above. Transmit the L.C. records to the Tribunal forthwith. A copy of this order will be furnished to the learned counsel for the insurance company.