JUDGMENT : RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Also heard Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and order dated 15.3.2003, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, in the MAC Case No.1010/1999. 3. The appellant as claimant has preferred the said claim petition claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The brief case, that can be recapitulated is that on 19.9.1999, while the appellant was returning home on foot by the side of the NH-37, suddenly the vehicle No.HR-22-CA-0180 (truck), driving by the driver in rush and negligent manner, knocked him down from backside resulting grievous injuries to his person. He was treated in the hospital for the fracture injury sustained by him and after the release also, he continued his treatment. The Doctor who treated him certified that he sustained 45% disability from the injuries he sustained. 4. On the claim petition, so preferred by him, the learned Tribunal issued notice to the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle. Only the Insurer of the vehicle contested the case by filing written statement and the other opposite parties did not contest the case. 5. In the written statement, the Insurance Company submits that the claimant is to strictly prove his case on which the allegation has been made and for any violation in the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company will not be liable to indemnify the insured. On the basis of the pleadings between the parties, following issued were framed: 1. Whether the claimant has sustained injuries while travelling in the vehicle? 2. Whether the driver drove the vehicle in a very rush and negligent manner? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? 4. Any other relief or reliefs which the claimant is entitled to get? 6. In the course of proceeding, the claimant examined himself and another eye witness of the occurrence and exhibited some documents and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant sustained injury in the said accident due to rush and negligent driving of the vehicle. 6. In the course of proceeding, the claimant examined himself and another eye witness of the occurrence and exhibited some documents and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant sustained injury in the said accident due to rush and negligent driving of the vehicle. As regards the injury, the learned Tribunal on the basis of the medical documents as well as the disability certificate, that was issued by the GMCH, has awarded total amount of Rs. 79,000/-, which included pain and sufferings, permanent disablement, loss of amenities in life, medical expenses, etc. It transpires that the learned Tribunal has accepted the medical documents that has been produced by the appellant regarding the disability, without discussing in detail on the subject, as to whether the claimant sustained permanent or partial disability, as has been opined by the Medical Officer, who issued the certificate. The learned Tribunal was of the opinion that as the original medical certificate has been produced, so examination of the Doctor is not necessary. 7. The claimant/appellant however being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, has brought the matter on the appeal on the contention that the learned Tribunal has not taken into account the extent of permanent disability suffered by him and other various facets of the case that the petitioner has to continue long treatment after the said accident, incurring huge expanses for his medical treatment. 8. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground of appeal. Where, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is not proper and the Tribunal has failed to award an adequate compensation on account of permanent disability, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed such contention of the claimant and contended that the claimant is not entitled to any such compensation on account of permanent disability, whereas the medical document that has been produced by him is not properly proved. That apart, it has also been contended that there is no any proper evidence from the side of the appellant as to what extent he was incapacitate due to such disability or to what extent his earning capacity was affected for the injuries sustained. 9. That apart, it has also been contended that there is no any proper evidence from the side of the appellant as to what extent he was incapacitate due to such disability or to what extent his earning capacity was affected for the injuries sustained. 9. In pursuant to the submission made above, I have also perused the evidence of the claimant/appellant, given before the Tribunal. The claimant in his evidence, nowhere mentioned as to what extent his income capacity has been affected for such disability. He simply asserted that he is unable to work properly after the accident. His other witness is also silent on that aspect save and except he proved the fact that the injured sustained his injuries in the said accident due to rush and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. 10. On the next, it is to be noted that although the claimant has produced certain documents issued by the Medical Officer of the GMCH, regarding his physical disability, the attending Doctor has not been examined nor any prayer has been made to examine the said witness. In such eventuality, the said document and its content is not at all proved and the other side is also deprived of cross-examine the said Doctor, as to and what basis such disability has been assessed and its impact upon his earning capacity. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the decision of (Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 343 ), wherein as to under what circumstances, the disability of a person can be accounted and the duty of the learned Tribunal, while assessing such disability. Certain relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced here-in-below for better appreciation: "5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages): (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages): (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages): (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability. 6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 7. ......................................... 8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 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 ). 9. ................................... 10. ................................... 11. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to 'hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the 'just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the 'just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. If a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage. 12. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give 'ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross- examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. 13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. 13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors." 12. Moreover, in the aforesaid decision, in paragraph 16 it has also been discussed that where the certificate from Medical Board has been produced and due to busyness of the Doctor, he did not attend the Court. in that circumstances, the Court can accept the certificate issued by the Board of Doctors but at first effort should be made to record the evidence of the treating Doctor. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent also referred to certain decisions of this Court reported in: (i) (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bimal Nath and Others, (2009) 1 GauLT 370 ) & (ii) (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bapu Khan (Md.) and another, (2015) 2 GauLT 848 ). 14. From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this High Court, in the aforesaid decisions, it transpires that such a medical document is to be proved by examining the Doctor, who issued such certificate, to prove the extent of disability, etc., as indicated above. 15. Now in the present case, as it appears that although the claimant had exhibited the medical documents but has not examined the Doctor, who issued such certificate and in such circumstances, the extent of disability whether temporary or permanent, etc., is not at all properly proved. 15. Now in the present case, as it appears that although the claimant had exhibited the medical documents but has not examined the Doctor, who issued such certificate and in such circumstances, the extent of disability whether temporary or permanent, etc., is not at all properly proved. However the learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/-, under the head of permanent disability. 16. In the backdrop of the case and that the matter pertains to an old pending one and the claimant is still in the legal battle, we do not propose to disturb the assessment of the said amount, which was not made on the basis of any multiplier etc. However, considering the facts and circumstances that the claimant was under prolong treatment inside and outside the hospital, for which he might have incurred sufficient expenditures, this Court proposed to enhanced certain amount in the following manner: (i) Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- (ii) For permanent disablement Rs.40,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities in life Rs.20,000/- (iv) Loss of income for 7 months @ Rs. 4000/- P.M. Rs.28,000/- (v) Medical expenses Rs. 9,002/- (vi) Miscellanies expenses Rs.20,000/- Total : Rs. 1,47,002/- (Rs. One lakh forty seven thousand two only) 17. Accordingly, the claimant will be entitled to the award as indicated above with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of award till realization. The enhanced amount shall be deposited before the Registry of the Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of order, by adjusting the amount already paid. 18. With the above, the appeal succeeds, to the extent as indicated. 19. Return back the LCR immediately.