JUDGMENT : B.N. KARIA, J. 1. The present appellant, who is original opponent No.3 before the M.A.C.T., at Idar (Sabarkantha) in M.A.C.P. No.910 of 2007 has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on 14.6.2017 awarding compensation to the extent of 4,27,580/- to the original claimant. 2. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- 3.1 The original claimant preferred a petition praying for compensation on account of the injuries received by him in a vehicular accident occurred on 2.8.2007 at about 5.30 p.m. when he was returning to his home at Idar from Idar Railway Station. When he was driving his Spirit motorcycle on Vadali - Idar road, near Kamal Auto Agency, opponent No.1 came with his rickshaw bearing No.GJ-5Y-7955 with excessive speed, rashly and negligently and collided with Spirit motorcycle from backside and therefore, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his body. Immediately, he was admitted in Niti Orthopedic Hospital at Idar. Three to four fractures were found in his X-ray report as per the opinion of Doctor. His left hand was operated and plate was inserted. He had also received fracture injury on his right thigh. He was an indoor patient from 2.8.2007 to 4.8.2007 in the hospital and was bedridden for a period of three months'. His treatment continued for a considerable period. That he had to incur an amount of Rs. 35,000 to 40,000/- for his medical treatment. He was serving as Professor and therefore, he was not in a position to serve for the period of three months'. That two persons were engaged during the course of his treatment as attendants. That due to severe injuries sustained by him, he had received permanent disability. He had to suffer great pain, shock and agony, and spent huge amount on transportation charges, special diet etc. and therefore, prayed to pass an award for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- only along with interest from the opponents. 3.2 The opponent No.3 appeared through its advocate and filed written statement vide Exh.17, denying all the contentions raised by the claimant in his claim petition except specifically admitted. and therefore, prayed to pass an award for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- only along with interest from the opponents. 3.2 The opponent No.3 appeared through its advocate and filed written statement vide Exh.17, denying all the contentions raised by the claimant in his claim petition except specifically admitted. The dispute of valid driving license of the driver of rickshaw bearing No.GJ-5Y-7955 was raised by this opponent. As per the contents, driver of the rickshaw had driven his rickshaw carefully, cautiously and in moderate speed, and the claimant himself had driven his motorcycle rashly and negligently and came suddenly in middle of the road, without giving any signal or indication to the passing vehicle/s and therefore, the accident took place. 3.3 That age of the claimant was 58 years, his income would Rs. 38,700/- p.m. and the injuries of fracture and other injuries and period as indoor patient in the hospital, were not admitted by this opponent. It was requested by the Insurance Company to dismiss the claim petition. 3.4 The opponent No.1 had appeared before the Tribunal, but did not file any reply. While opponent No.2, however was duly served with the notice, did not remain present. 3.5 The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, and considering the arguments advanced by respective advocate for the parties was pleased to pass an award, granting compensation to the claimant to the extent of Rs. 4,27,580/- only with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the opponents, jointly and severally, from the date of application till its realisation. 4. The present appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal before this court. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. M.T.M. Hakim for the respondent No.1. No arguments were advanced by respondents No.2 and 3, however served with notice. 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant, at the time of accident was serving as Professor in Government College and was earning Rs. 38,531/- p.m. That income of the claimant was increased after the accident. Therefore, there was no ground to consider future loss of income by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs. 4,15,080/- on the ground of future loss of income. 38,531/- p.m. That income of the claimant was increased after the accident. Therefore, there was no ground to consider future loss of income by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs. 4,15,080/- on the ground of future loss of income. It is further submitted that the claimant himself has admitted in his cross-examination that after the accident, his service was continued and his income has increased. That the claimant had discontinued working only on account of his retirement without any reduction of salary. That considering the future loss of income for the claimant, however, there was, in fact, no loss of income after the accident and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal requires to be quashed and set-aside. Hence, it was requested by learned counsel for the appellant to quash and set-aside the impugned judgment and award. 7. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India between Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. reported in, (2011) 1 SCC 343 more particularly, paragraph 10 of the said judgment, which is reproduced herein below:- "10. 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 10 disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (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. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may." 8. From the other side, learned counsel for the claimant - respondent No.1 supported the judgment and award by the Tribunal, arguing that no apparent mistake is committed by the Tribunal in passing the award of compensation in favour of the original claimant - respondent No.1 herein. Be that as it may." 8. From the other side, learned counsel for the claimant - respondent No.1 supported the judgment and award by the Tribunal, arguing that no apparent mistake is committed by the Tribunal in passing the award of compensation in favour of the original claimant - respondent No.1 herein. That, however, the petitioner was serving as a Professor in Government College and earning Rs. 38,531/- p.m., the court has to consider not only the exact percentage of loss of earning capacity, but also the actual economic loss sustained or likely to be sustained by the injured person. That loss of earning capacity on account of physical disability, would be felt when the injured would after the retirement, seek some private employment. That it is rational to consider this aspect in arriving at a figure of future economic loss. That the Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect by adopting 5 years multiplier only, as the claimant was serving as Professor in the Government College. Hence, it was requested by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - claimant to dismiss the appeal. 9. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon decision of Division Bench of this court between Rameshbhai Ramnikbhai Vyas Vs. Ismail Ibrahim and Suleman Ibrahim reported in, (2012) 2 GCD 1388 . 10. Having considered the facts of the case, record of the Tribunal i.e. of M.A.C.P. No.910 of 2007, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, the only issue which is focused by the appellant is of future loss of income in the present case, as awarded to the claimant. Indisputably, the claimant was serving as Professor in Arts and Commerce College at Idar and was earning Rs. 38,700/- only p.m. Vide Exh.48, he has produced his salary certificate for the month of June, 2007. From the certificate, it transpires that claimant was earning Rs. 38,531/- as salary p.m. and the accident had occurred in August, 2007. It is also an admitted fact that salary of claimant has increased thereafter. There was no reason to disbelieve the figure as shown in the salary certificate, Exh.48 of Rs. 38,531/- as earned by the claimant at the time of accident. 11. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the claimant at Rs. 38,531/- at the time of accident. There was no reason to disbelieve the figure as shown in the salary certificate, Exh.48 of Rs. 38,531/- as earned by the claimant at the time of accident. 11. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the claimant at Rs. 38,531/- at the time of accident. The age of the claimant at the time of accident was 58 years. The claimant has admitted in his cross-examination before the Tribunal that his service was continued, and after 2007, his salary has increased and there was no reduction in his salary upto his retirement in 2011. There was no record available with the Tribunal to show that he had taken leave without pay. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision of this court between State of Gujarat Vs. Somabhai Dhulabhai Sindhara & Ors. reported in, (1993) 2 GLH 714 wherein it was held that loss of earning capacity on account of physical disability would materialise after their retirement when in normal physical conditions they would be expected to do some private work on re-employment or some security job. It was further considered that such a loss can be assessed for a period for about 5 years after retirement. 12. The case relied upon by the claimant in Rameshbhai Ramnikbhai Vyas (supra) wherein the appellants, who met with an accident and received injuries was serving as a Teacher. He was aged 45 years. He had not suffered any extra loss of income after the accident or had not suffered any monetary loss. He has continued to function as Teacher and there was no loss going to be suffered by the appellants in his future income. This court was of the view that, however, this was the position, still the loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. 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. Thus, in each case, the Tribunal has to assess the loss of earning capacity on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. In the cited case, four injuries were sustained by the appellant and his treatment was continued. Thus, in each case, the Tribunal has to assess the loss of earning capacity on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. In the cited case, four injuries were sustained by the appellant and his treatment was continued. Considering the fact the Tribunal has already calculated 52% disability for body as a whole instead of 44 per cent disability as per the evidence of the Doctor. This court upheld by applying multiplier of 5 years in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Here also, the claimant has continued in his service after the accident and therefore, there was no loss of earning capacity, this court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the claimant and multiplier of 5 years. Hence, this court would not like to interfere with in the impugned judgment and award passed in favour of the claimant - respondent No.1 herein and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. The present First Appeal is dismissed, thereby, the judgment and award by the Tribunal is confirmed. 15. In view of the dismissal of First Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 16. R & P be sent back to the concerned court forthwith.