JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J Since both the appeals, hence, arise from a common award, hence, both stand disposed, of, under a common order. 2. The learned counsel for the claimant in FAO No. 544 of 2017 has maintained a vigor submission before this Court, qua, the computation, made, by the learned Tribunal, vis-avis, the income of the disabled claimant, income whereof, is comprised in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per mensem, rather being grossly inappropriate, nor any computation of compensation, as made, on anvil thereof being valid, given (i) there occurring ample evidence on record, (ii) especially qua in sequel, to the claimant hence incurring the apt disability, disability whereof stands displayed in Ext. PW1/A, (iii) thereupon, there, being a gross reduction in his income, as hitherto, reared from his avocation, as a tailor. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle, has, also made a submission before this Court, qua, the computation made by the learned Tribunal, under the head, loss of earnings, and earning capacity, in sequel to the disability entailed, upon, the claimant, consequent to the accident, rather being also amenable for disaffirmation, given (i) the learned Tribunal not bearing in mind, the, testification, rendered in his cross-examination, by the claimant, wherein he acquiesces, qua, even after his incurring the apt disability, his, yet continuing to maintain, his avocation as a tailor. 4. 4. After considering the respective submissions addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel concerned, this Court, for the reasons, ascribed hereinafter, disaffirms the computation of compensation, made by the learned Tribunal, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, under the head, loss of earnings capacity, given (i) it being grossly away, from, the apt evidence, adduced in respect thereof, besides it misapplying the mandate of the verdict, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 126, titled Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (ii) given the disabled claimant rather acquiescing, qua, his continuing to retain his avocation, as a tailor, (iii) whereupon an inference is errectable qua the apt disability, not precluding him nor incapacitating him, to perform, his avocation as tailor, (iv) in aftermath, with no concomitant loss of earnings, from, his hitherto avocation, as a tailor, hence standing encumbered upon him, nor, also thereupon any computation, under the head, loss of earnings capacity, was tenably assessable qua him, in sequel to his sustaining, the, apt disability, in a roadside accident, involving the offending vehicle, (v) thereupon, it, being unbeffiting, for, the learned Tribunal, to make any computation of any compensation, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, under the aforesaid head, loss of earnings of income, in sequel to the disability, entailed upon him, (vi) the learned Tribunal could tenably proceed to make the aforesaid computation, upon, the disabled claimant, upon the latter placing on record, the apt statements of accounts, with a clear display, therein, that prior to the apt disability standing entailed upon him, his, rearing from his avocation, as a tailor, sums of money higher, than the one as stand reared, subsequent to the entailment of the apt disability, upon him (vii) yet, with the aforesaid best evidence remaining unadduced, this Court, is, of the firm opinion, qua, the compensation under the head, loss of earnings, being amenable to be quashed, and, set aside. Appeal bearing FAO No. 285 of 2016, is, partly allowed, and, appeal bearing FAO No. 544 of 2017 is dismissed, and, the award of 25.8.2015, rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P., is, modified to the above extent. Both the appeals stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.