JUDGMENT : The appellant by way of present appeal, is praying for enhancement of amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that, the appellant/claimant was proceeding in Jeep bearing registration no. MH-31G-7190 on Ridhora-Kondhali road, Dist. Nagpur. The driver of the jeep was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. The jeep gave a dash to the State Transport Bus resulting to which the appellant had sustained grievous injury. The appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% in his right leg. 3. The appellant preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for grant of compensation. The total compensation claimed by the appellant was Rs. 2,30,000/-, however, the claim was restricted to Rs.2,00,000/-. The following are the heads under which the compensation was claimed by the appellant in the claim petition. A Medical Expenses till today and future expenses. Rs. 10,000/- B Pain, suffering and nervous shock, shortening of life, loss of enjoyment, personal inconvenience etc. due to permanent disablement. Rs.1,00,000/- C Loss of earning and Future earning. Rs.1,00,000/- D Special diet, travelling expenses, maid servant and etc. Rs. 20,000/- Total claim of compensation Rs.2,30,000/- 4. The learned Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, granted Rs.83,500/- towards compensation i.e. Rs.50,000/- towards future income looking to the permanent disability, Rs.13,500/- towards expenses incurred for his care taken during the medical treatment, Rs.10,000/- pains and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet, vide judgment and award dated 6th April, 2009 in claim petition no. 836 of 2003. 5. Dissatisfied the amount of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal the present appeal has been filed and thereby the appellant is claiming total compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- as per the claim raised in the claim petition. 6. Heard Shri V.R. Thote, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Thakur holding for Shri S.S.Sanyal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. None for the respondent no.1, the owner of the jeep. 7. Shri Thote, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the case of the appellant about the permanent disability and held that the appellant failed to bring sufficient evidence on record to show that he is not able to work after suffering from permanent disability. 7. Shri Thote, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the case of the appellant about the permanent disability and held that the appellant failed to bring sufficient evidence on record to show that he is not able to work after suffering from permanent disability. The learned counsel, submits that the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation. 8. Shri Thote, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly argued only on the point of disability and to substantiate his argument he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited reported in 2011(7) ALL MR 774 (S.C). 9. Per contra Ms. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, points out that the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation is misconceived and the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal has not considered his case of permanent disability needs to be rejected as the learned Tribunal has considered the same and granted compensation looking to the permanent disability of the petitioner. Ms. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. has drawn attention of this Court to para 14 of the impugned judgment to point out that Rs.50,000/- has been granted against the total claim of the appellant for Rs.1,00,000/- towards future income, after considering the 50% permanent disability of the appellant. 10. She further argues that on the point of permanent disability, the appellant has not examined the doctor, he has failed to produce any cogent and relevant evidence in support of his case that he is not able to work after suffering permanent disability. In the said backdrop, she further points out that the compensation which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for in the present matter, by this Court. 11. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record and proceedings and also impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. 12. There is no dispute that in the claim petition, the compensation which was claimed by the appellant, was bifurcated in four different heads. The relevant head in respect of permanent disability is clause (C) wherein amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed by the appellant towards 'loss of earning and future earning'. 13. 12. There is no dispute that in the claim petition, the compensation which was claimed by the appellant, was bifurcated in four different heads. The relevant head in respect of permanent disability is clause (C) wherein amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed by the appellant towards 'loss of earning and future earning'. 13. After going through the judgment, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal has accepted the case of appellant as regard to permanent disability and while granting compensation, the learned Tribunal has observed in para 14 that “As per the disability certificate petitioner had sustained 50% permanent disablement. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.” 14. Thus, from the said findings given by the learned Tribunal it is clear that permanent disability is taken into considered by the learned Tribunal and Rs.50,000/- has been granted towards future income. 15. After going through the evidence, I have no hesitation to say that nothing has been brought by the appellant on record to show that because of permanent disability he is not able to work. In his evidence he has stated that he was admitted in to Government Medical College Hospital, Nagpur on 19th August, 2003 and discharged on 16th September, 2003 where rod was inserted in his right leg. However, he did not depose anything in support of his claim relating to future income on the ground of his inability to work as a labourer after suffering from permanent disability. 16. There is also no dispute that the appellant has not examined the doctor in support of his claim based on the permanent disability. 17. In the said backdrop, if the law in respect of grant of compensation in the case of permanent disability is considered the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (supra), has observed thus: 9. The term “disability”, as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case. 10. In Ramesh Chandra Vs. Randhir Singh (1990) 3 SCC 723 , this Court drawing distinction between the compensation for future loss and pain and enjoyment of life, has observed as under : “…. the capacity or disability to earn a livelihood would have to be viewed not only in presenti but in futuro on reasonable expectancies and taking into account deprival of earnings of a conceivable period. This head being totally different cannot in our view overlap the grant of compensation under the head of pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. One head relates to the impairment of person’s capacity to earn, the other relates to the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself”. 13. In Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2011 (1) ALL MR 402 S.C)], this Court, while considering the award of compensation to the victim of motor accident for loss of future earning due to some permanent physical disability, has observed : “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, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. 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, the 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 to too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent 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 terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earning (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 the 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 Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Yadava Kumar V. National Insurance Co. Ltd.). 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. (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”. 18. In the case of Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande and another reported in 2017 (3) SCC 351 (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 13 and 14, which read thus: 13. In the last few years, law in this aspect has been straightened by this Court by removing certain cobwebs that had been created because of some divergent views on certain aspects. It is not even necessary to refer to all these cases. We find that the principle of determination of compensation in the case of permanent/partial disablement has been exhaustively dealt with after referring to the relevant case law on the subject in Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar in the following words : (SCC pp. 348-50, paras 8 – 11) “Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability 8. 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 the 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 the 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 accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physicl disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the 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. 9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%. 10. If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%. 10. 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 the 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 shows 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. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent 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 terms 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 the 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.”. 19. Thus, it is clear from the judgments referred above, that in most of the cases percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity from the percentage of a permanent disability will be different. 19. Thus, it is clear from the judgments referred above, that in most of the cases percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity from the percentage of a permanent disability will be different. Thus what requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent 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 terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings. The disability mentioned in the certificate should not be considered to be functional disability of the body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not have prevented him from carrying out his work, though it might impede in his smooth functioning and therefore each case has to be considered in the lights of his own facts and circumstances. 20. In the present matter it has come on record that the permanent disability is in respect of right leg of appellant. It has also come on record that he was labourer and used to work in the agricultural field. However, nothing has brought on record that after suffering from permanent disability in right leg to the extent of 50%, he is not able to carry out the regular work of agricultural operation. 21. Even in absence of such evidence, the learned Tribunal has considered his case for grant of Rs.50,000/- against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation under the head of future income loss. According to me it is just compensation towards future loss on the ground of permanent disability, granted by the Tribunal. 22. As far as other heads are concerned, the appellant claimed Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses including future expenses, the learned Tribunal has granted the said expenses, whereas under the head of pains suffering the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet. 23. In the light of above facts, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any mistake or error in granting total compensation of Rs.83,500/- to the appellant. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. 24. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.