JUDGMENT : Sindhu Sharma, J.—These two appeals arise out of a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu on 18.04.2017 in Claim Petition No. 135/C and 136/C instituted on 07.06.2011. The appellant is the Insurance Company which has questioned the award of Rs.2,63,400/- in favour of Ranjit Singh (respondent), Claimant in MA No. 204/2017 and Rs.4,30,919/- in favour of Naresh Kumar (respondent), Claimant in MA No. 203/2017 (hereinafter to be referred as Claimants) for the injuries sustained by them in the accident. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that both the claimants were travelling in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. JK02AL-7999 while returning to Jammu from Udhampur, on reaching at Mand near Purana Bhatta National High Way, Udhampur, the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing Registration No. JK01F-3557 coming from opposite direction hit the Maruti Car in which both the injured were travelling. The accident took place because of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle because the driver suddenly came from the wrong side and collided. Both the occupants of the Maruti Car sustained injuries for which they were treated in District Hospital, Udhampur and Government Medical College, Jammu. They have also claimed to have been treated in private hospital at Madan Hospital Majitha, Amritsar and Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar. 3. Both the claimants filed the Claim Petitions claiming compensation. The driver and the owner, insured, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the Claim Petition, of the offending vehicle did not appear despite service and were set ex-parte. It is only the appellant-Insurance Company, which has contested the petition. The appellant-Insurance Company challenged the award, mainly, on the ground that both the claimants being government employees had not suffered any loss of future income and, thus, the Tribunal was wrong in awarding loss of future income in their favour. It is also pleaded that the amount awarded is highly arbitrary and excessive as the law has completely been ignored while awarding compensation. 4. It is submitted that the claimants have failed to prove the loss of income and there being no evidence about the loss of future income, the same has been awarded without any justified reason. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 27.02.2012: “1. 4. It is submitted that the claimants have failed to prove the loss of income and there being no evidence about the loss of future income, the same has been awarded without any justified reason. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 27.02.2012: “1. Whether an accident occurred on 29.05.2010 at Mand near Purana Bhatta NHW Udhampur due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK01F-3557 being driven by respondent No1, in which petitioners Ranjit Singh and Naresh Kumar received grievous injuries? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and whether there was violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance, if so, to what effect? OPR-2 4. Whether there was contributory negligence of petitioner, if so to what effect? OPR-2 5. Relief. O.P.Parties” 6. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had obtained permission of the Tribunal to raise questions of facts. Despite this the Tribunal framed the issues, which are issues of fact, which the insurance company could not raise without permission. 7. Be that as it may, the only question which arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation for future loss of income. The only evidence brought on record is the statement of claimants and of Dr. Rajesh Gupta, who was one of the members of the Board being Orthopedic Surgeon, issued the disability certificate in favour of both the claimants, as in the case of Ranjit Singh, the Board stated, as treated case of fracture with 26% disability of the right lower limb. Similarly, in the case of Naresh Kumar Sawhney, the disability certificate issued by the Board stated that he was having 32% disability of the right lower limb as it was also the case of fracture. 8. To appreciate the contents of the Certificate issued by the Board, it is necessary to reproduce the statement of Dr. Rajesh Gupta. It reads as under: “Dr. 8. To appreciate the contents of the Certificate issued by the Board, it is necessary to reproduce the statement of Dr. Rajesh Gupta. It reads as under: “Dr. Rajesh Gupta, Age 55 years Ortho Surgeon SDH R.S. Pura, In examination-in-chief by the counsel for petitioner states:- I along with other member of the Board examined Ranjit Singh injured age 54 years and after examination we have issued the certificate which is on the file, is correct, bears our seals and signatures and is exhibited as EXPW-RG. This is a operated case of fracture acetabulum right with reconstruction plates. His permanent disability amount to 26% of the right lower limb. The patient with this disability will have difficulty in sitting, squatting, climbing up and down the stairs and even running. In case of the petitioner Naresh Kumar Sawhney age 47 years I also along with other member of the Board examined Naresh Kumar injured age 54 years and after examination we have issued the certificate which is on the file, is correct, bears our seals and signatures and is exhibited as EXPW-RG. He is a operated case of fracture supracondylar right femur with intercondylar extension with locking plate. His permanent disability amount to 32% of the right lower limb. The patient with this disability will have difficulty in sitting, squatting, climbing up and down the stairs and even running.. In cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent Insurance Company states:- I have not treated the patients. I have examined the patient for assessment of disability. The disability in both the cases will reduce proportionally when compared with whole body and would amount to 13% in case of Ranjit Singh and 16% in case of Naresh Kumar Sawhney. The petitioners are not present in the court today. These disabilities are assessed to the text book of Kulkarnai. The contents of the statement were read over and explained to the witness who admits it correct word to word”. 9. In cross-examination, he has clarified that disability of the body in case of Ranjit Singh is 13% and in case of Naresh Kumar Sawhney is 16%. 10. The Doctor was not asked to indicate as to how this disability will affect the future income of the claimants, both the claimants are also silent regarding what they would like to do after retirement. 10. The Doctor was not asked to indicate as to how this disability will affect the future income of the claimants, both the claimants are also silent regarding what they would like to do after retirement. There is nothing on record regarding the statement of both the claimants as to how their service prospects are likely to be adversely affected by the injuries and there is also no evidence regarding how much time they remained without pay during the treatment. 11. Naresh Kumar Sawhney, in his statement, states that he owns a vehicle (Spark Car), which he used to drive, but after the said accident he was not able to drive the vehicle and there is every possibility that he may not be able to drive the vehicle in future, but, it is only the Doctor, who could have stated whether Naresh Kumar Sawhney was fit to drive the vehicle. However, no such question was put to him in the absence of which the statement of claimants cannot be accepted especially when he himself was not sure of his disability in future. Regarding the amount awarded, no reason has been given except that the income of the claimants after their retirement can be taken at least 20,000/- in addition to their pension benefits and referring to the extent of disability of 13% in case of Ranjit Singh and 16% in case of Naresh Kumar Sawhney, the annual loss was concluded while awarding Rs.2,18,400/- in favour of Ranjit Singh and Rs.2,68,800/- in favour of Naresh Kumar as total loss of future earnings. There is not even a whisper in the statement of the claimants that they have become disabled to do any work after retirement. The age of Ranjit Singh as given in his affidavit on 19.02.2014 is 55 years, while that of Naresh Kumar Sawhney is 48 years. They have nowhere stated that chances of their promotion are affected by the injuries, suffered by them. Ranjit Singh claims to have been posted as a Senior Assistant in Electric Maintenance and RE Division, Udhampur and Naresh Kumar Sawhney was Assistant Account Officer in Electric Maintenance and RE Division, Udhampur, both the claimants, thus, were government employees and continued to be working there as the accident has not affected their service career. Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and others, 2011 ACJ 1 .(Para 12) 12. Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and others, 2011 ACJ 1 .(Para 12) 12. Both the claimants have not put forth a case to show as to how their future income was likely to be affected by the aforesaid injuries. In case of injuries to a person in a motor accident, the compensation is awarded under pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages, i.e., special damages and general damages. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and others, reported as 2011 ACJ 1 , it was held that “the Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injury and their defect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Section 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 “just compensation”. The Tribunal should therefore, have taken an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess just compensation….”. Though the failure on the part of the Tribunal may not effect the final result of the petition if ultimately the petitioner is not found entitled to any compensation (page 385). In Raj Kumar’s case (supra), their Lordships explain the general principle relating to compensation in injury case in para 5, which is extracted below: “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). (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). (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” 13. In the instant case, there is no evidence regarding loss of earnings and future medical expenses. There is also no evidence regarding future loss of earnings. Their Lordships after discussing permanent disability has held as under: “9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. In the instant case, there is no evidence regarding loss of earnings and future medical expenses. There is also no evidence regarding future loss of earnings. Their Lordships after discussing permanent disability has held as under: “9. 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. 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.” 14. After discussing the issue regarding the proof of disability, their Lordships in para 13 held as under: “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. (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.” 15. In this case, there is no evidence that the disability referred by the Medical Board has resulted in loss of earning capacity while awarding compensation for total loss of income, so there is no loss of earning capacity in this case. 16. The amount awarded as loss of future income is arbitrary, based on no evidence, since the Tribunal did not return any finding as to how the claimants are likely to suffer loss of future income, therefore, amount awarded on this account is disallowed. In case of claimant, Naresh Kumar, the Tribunal allowed the amount on other heads, however, for compensation on account of loss of amenities of life, amount awarded is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.12,000/- and he is also granted Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. In case of claimant, Ranjit Singh also the amount on account of future income is disallowed, compensation awarded on account of loss of amenities of life is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.12,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads, as such, requires no interference. He is also granted Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. 17. In view of the above observation, the appeal is partially allowed to the extent indicated above and the award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal is modified in the above terms. 18. Record of the Tribunal be remitted back. 19. Disposed of as above.