ORDER : G.R. Udhwani, J. 1. Judgment and award dated 12/03/2019 rendered in MACP No. 99 of 2013 by the MACT (Main) Kachchh at Bhuj is sought to be assailed on two grounds which are elaborated hereinbelow while dealing with the merits of the case. 2. The opponent lodged the claim petition under Section 166 as also under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) for the compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-12-BP-8733 on which he was riding a pillion. The applicant was aged 25 years at the relevant point of time and was diagnosed with 75% disability for the body as a whole. He sustained serious injuries which inter-alia caused brain haemorrhages and skull bone fractures. He also suffered right sides weakness, speech difficulties, memory disturbances. He was also found to be unable to walk. Under the circumstances, there is no serious challenge to the disability sustained by the victim. What is sought to be argued is that the tribunal was not justified in awarding 40% towards future prospective income. It is also sought to be argued that in fact the claimant was himself negligent in driving the vehicle and that he was not a pillion rider. Much reliance has been placed upon the Janvajog Entry (the entry noting the occurrence but not taking cognizance). Reliance is also placed upon Medico Legal Certificate wherein, the mention is made that the driver slipped with the vehicle in question of his own. It is submitted that the document being silent about pillion riding, inference of document himself driving must be drawn. 2.1 As to the first contention, following considerations weighed with the tribunal: "11. So far as the disability is concerned, applicant has examined Dr. Tarek A. Khatri at Exh. 33 who has issued the disability certificate. As per his evidence the applicant was having multiple brain haemorrhages and skull bone fractures. His present complaints are right sides weakness, speech difficulties, memory disturbances, unable to walk and represent seizures. On examination the applicant was having severe right hemipresion, moderate dysarthria, looking towards this permanent disability was to be 75% and 25% each for hemipresion and arthria, commutative disability acc. His present complaints are right sides weakness, speech difficulties, memory disturbances, unable to walk and represent seizures. On examination the applicant was having severe right hemipresion, moderate dysarthria, looking towards this permanent disability was to be 75% and 25% each for hemipresion and arthria, commutative disability acc. To formula a + b (90 - a/90), a = upper value, b = lower value is 75 + 25 (90-75/90) = 75 + 4.16 = 79.16 body as a whole. Of course, he has been cross examined by the Ld. Advocate for the insurance company thoroughly but nothing adverse has come on record. Whereas, the above fact has also duly corroborated from the injury certificate issued by Dr. Nimish P. Trivedi, Neuro Surgeon, Rajkoat at Exh. 42 as well as from the other documentary evidence on record. Perusing the injury certificate issued by Dr. Nimish P. Trivedi at Exh. 42, it is mentioned that the applicant was admitted in his hospital on 16.01.2013 and was discharged on 30.01.2013 having the history of vehicular accident on 15.01.2013. Hence, it appears that the applicant was immediately taken to the Hospital at Rajkot for treatment. It is also mentioned that the applicant was semi conscious. The applicant was operated on 17.01.2013. Now, from perusal of the CT Scan of Brain report Exh. 43, Comminuted fracture is seen involving left frontal skull bone. Fracture is also seen involving right frontal skull bone, anterior wall and roof of right bony orbit. It also appears from the documentary evidence at Exh. 53 which is of Leva Patel Hospital from which it appears that the applicant was having RTA head injury and was taking treatment. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the insurance company has not led any evidence in rebuttal. Whereas, the the applicant has by producing the above documentary as well as oral evidence has sufficiently proved that he had sustained above injuries due to the aforesaid accident. 12. At this juncture, I would like to mention here that the percentage of permanent disability and its effect on earning capacity is altogether a different thing. Whereas, the the applicant has by producing the above documentary as well as oral evidence has sufficiently proved that he had sustained above injuries due to the aforesaid accident. 12. At this juncture, I would like to mention here that the percentage of permanent disability and its effect on earning capacity is altogether a different thing. In a case there may be a higher percentage of permanent disability but there may be less reduction in earning capacity and there may be less percentage of permanently disability and its effect on earning capacity may be 100% considering the nature of the work the victim was doing at the relevant time of accident. At this juncture, I have sought guidance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in 2018 ACJ 1710 wherein, it is held by the Hon'ble High Court that "considering that injured is unfit to do labour work assessed functional disability 100 per cent." The same view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the judgment reported in 2018 ACJ 1330 wherein, it is held by the Hon'ble High Court that "considering that injured is unable to do the work he was performing before the accident, assessed loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the judgment reported in 2018 ACJ 1011 as under: 11. In making the computation in the present case, the Court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered loss of use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand that loss of hands is a complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing, at least in the facts of this case, can restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. In 2018 ACJ 1011 Supreme Court; the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: Quantum - Injury - Hand - Loss of use of both hands - injured unable to perform day-to-day activities without assistance of attendant - injured aged 24, carpenter, earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. Accident took place on 24.11.2011. For a person engaged in manual activities loss of hands is a complete deprivation of ability to earn - Tribunal in absence of any evidence took income at Rs. 4,050/- p.m. assessed disability at 90 per cent - and declining any addition in income for future prospects and any amount for future medical expenses awarded Rs. 12,81,228 - High Court enhanced the award to Rs. 15,00,228/- Apex Court accepted the income at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. added 40 per cent for future prospects, determined disability at 100 per cent, adopted multiplier of 18 and allowed Rs. 18,14,400/- for loss of income plus Rs. 2,00,000/- for pain, shock and sufferings and loss of amenities, Rs. 98,908 towards medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs. 3,00,000/- for future medical expenses - Award of Rs. 15,00,228/- enhanced to Rs. 25,38,308. In 2019 ACJ 559 Supreme Court; it is held as under: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 168(1) - just compensation - whether compensation more than claimed can be awarded - Held: yes, Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation and courts are duty bound to award just compensation; there is no restriction that courts cannot award compensation exceeding the claim. 13. Hence, in above view of facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the applicant was aged about 25 years of age at the time of accident and he was engaged in manual work. This Tribunal has its own asked the question to the applicant as to whether he has studied or not and in reply, the applicant has stated that he is not literate and not able to read and write Gujarat language and not able to properly understand. This Tribunal has its own asked the question to the applicant as to whether he has studied or not and in reply, the applicant has stated that he is not literate and not able to read and write Gujarat language and not able to properly understand. Therefore, in above view of facts and circumstances, herein the instant case where the applicant was engaged in labour work, he cannot be expected to do any other type of work and hence, in above view of facts and circumstances and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Appellate Courts in the above cited judgments, this is a fit case to consider 80% functional disability. 14. As discussed hereinabove the income of the claimant is believed to Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment, considering the age of the applicant to be 25 years at the time of accident, 40% is required to be increased towards the future prospective income. As the functional disability of the applicant is held at 80%, on doing so, the amount would come to Rs. 5,600/- p.m. and Rs. 67,200/- p.a. Since the applicant was 25 years of age as per the medical records, applying 18 multipliers the future loss of income would come to Rs. 12,09,600/-." 2.2 It is evident from the above findings that the victim was considered disabled to an extent of 80% and 40% prospective income was considered on the basis of the case law referred to by the tribunal. This Court is unable to see any illegality or error in such a finding. 2.3 As to the 2nd contention, it is also evident from the reasonings which the learned Counsel for the appellant is unable to challenge; that the claimant was unsuccessfully cross-examined in connection with the fact that he himself was driving the vehicle. Nothing of the sort could be extracted from his cross-examination. Learned Counsel for the appellant is unable to point out anything in favour of the appellant from the cross-examination of the victim. The tribunal thus rightly relied upon the oral evidence of the claimant alongwith the facts emerging from the FIR, as also the charge-sheet showing that the claimant was a pillion rider and was not driving the vehicle as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The tribunal thus rightly relied upon the oral evidence of the claimant alongwith the facts emerging from the FIR, as also the charge-sheet showing that the claimant was a pillion rider and was not driving the vehicle as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. No evidence in rebuttal on this issue was adduced by the appellant. 2.4 Even the Janva Jog Entry did not clearly record that the applicant was driving the vehicle. Only feeble argument in this context is that the Janva Jog Entry does not mention that he was a pillion rider on the scooter. Such a feeble argument is required to be noted for rejection for the reasons already stated herein above. It would not be out of place to note here that the tribunal while exercising the powers under Section 166 is required to inquire into the matters rather than holding a criminal trial where the requirement would be to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 2.5 As against the unverified statements in MLC Certificate and Janva Jog Entry, there exists a weighty evidence of the claimant; challenged unsuccessfully in the cross-examination. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, tribunal committed no error in appreciating the evidence. In fact, evidence was appreciated in true perspective in accordance with law. 3. Thus no case for admission of the appeal is made out. It fails and is dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal, no orders on civil application.