JUDGMENT : B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J. 1. The appellant is the claimant in O.P. No. 414 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, which was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of the fracture injury to his right leg sustained by him in a motor accident which occurred on 18.02.2006 at 7.30 PM, while he was travelling in an auto bearing No. AP 23 V 7541 from Mominpet to Sadasivpet. The case of the appellant is that the driver of the auto, after reaching Mekavanampally village, drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner due to which the auto turned turtle. On account of the fracture injury, he was admitted in Remedy Multi Speciality Hospital, Kukatpally and spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- for his treatment and also required further amount for his operation and treatment. He is a resident of Sadasivpet Village and doing business of tea powder and other articles. On account of the accident, he sustained permanent disability and lost his earning capacity in future at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Hence, the claim. 2. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No. 2 is the Insurer of the said vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate counters and denied the allegations. Though the respondents admitted the involvement of the auto and the injuries to the claimant, they disputed the health condition, age and income of the claimant. 3. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. Bujji Babu, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, as PW-2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. RW-1 was examined on behalf of the respondents and Ex.B1 was marked. 4. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that after considering the pleadings and material on record, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 90,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Out of Rs. 90,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 70,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 90,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Out of Rs. 90,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 70,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses. The compensation claimed towards partial and permanent disability due to shortening of “right leg stiffens” was rejected by the Tribunal holding that the claimant failed to establish permanent partial disability. Aggrieved by the dismissal of compensation claim insofar as partial permanent disability, the instant appeal is filed. 5. Heard Ms. Shalini Saxena, representing Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW-2, Orthopaedic Surgeon, has categorically deposed in his evidence on 30.06.2007 that the claimant sustained five injuries viz. 1. Deformity middle third of right leg; 2. Laceration of about 3 x 1 ½ over right leg; 3. Swelling right A C joint of right shoulder; 4. Tenderness over right iliac crest and 5. History of loss of bone pieces from right leg. PW-2 gave evidence for the second time on 20.06.2008 stating that the claimant was admitted on 30.10.2007 for removal of ring fixator and anaesthesia was given and cement plaster was applied. The fracture had completely healed but with mal-union, the claimant has partial permanent disability of 50% to 60% in view of shortening of right leg stiffness. Learned counsel further submits that the claimant was doing business in tea powder and other articles and his monthly income was around Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence of PW-2 in the proper perspective and also erred in taking into account the income of the claimant. The Tribunal erroneously granted compensation under the head “pain and suffering” only for an amount of Rs. 70,000/- viz. Rs. 50,000/- for the fracture of both bones and Rs. 20,000/- for the second injury and wrongly awarded a lump sum only an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, the compensation granted is very meagre. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, submits that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-2, Orthopaedic Surgeon, who treated PW-1. 20,000/- for the second injury and wrongly awarded a lump sum only an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, the compensation granted is very meagre. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, submits that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-2, Orthopaedic Surgeon, who treated PW-1. The evidence of PW-2 is inconsistent with respect to the number of injuries sustained by PW-1 and the percentage of disability. As per Ex.A3, wound certificate, there are only two injuries, whereas in his evidence PW-2 refers to five injuries. Ex.A6 - bunch of medical bills and Ex.A8-transportation bills were not proved. Thus, the order of the Tribunal needs no interference. 9. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant claimant submitted that medical bills under Ex.A6 are issued by authorized medical shop. Ex.A4 discharge bills and Ex.A5 medical prescriptions are issued by the Remedy Hospital where PW-1 was treated. Further, the Tribunal erroneously disbelieved Ex.A8, Exs.A12 to Ex.A14 in spite of there being no contra evidence from the side of the Insurance Company. Exs.A12 and A13, bills, were issued by the hospital, which also cannot be doubted. 10. The Tribunal declined the claim of compensation towards partial and permanent disability by holding that PW-2, in his evidence, on 20.06.2008 stated that the claimant was admitted on 30.10.2007 for removal of ring fixator and the fracture was healed. PW-2 stated that there are 5 injuries whereas Ex.A3, wound certificate, mentioned two injuries. The Tribunal did not grant any compensation towards medical expenditure on the basis of Exs.A4 to A14 and in total, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 70,000/- for pain and suffering. Out of which, Rs. 50,000/- was awarded for fracture of both bones i.e. first injury and Rs. 20,000/- for the second injury. As against the claim towards medical bills/medical expenses a lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in total, compensation of Rs. 90,000/- was awarded. 11. It is rather unfortunate that in a deserving case, the Tribunal without even properly perusing the documentary evidence relied upon by the claimants and without properly appreciating evidence of PW-2 wrongly granted meagre compensation. 12. PW-2, for the first time, gave evidence on 30.06.2007 and the relevant portion of his chief examination is extracted hereunder: “He (PW-1) was operated on 19.02.2006 by debridement plus ILIZAROV ring fixator to right leg. 12. PW-2, for the first time, gave evidence on 30.06.2007 and the relevant portion of his chief examination is extracted hereunder: “He (PW-1) was operated on 19.02.2006 by debridement plus ILIZAROV ring fixator to right leg. He was discharged from hospital on 4-3-2006 with an advise to come for regular follow-ups and review medications. Ex.A-10 is discharge summary patient issued by remedy hospital. Subsequently he was operated again for bone grafting on 20-6-2006. He was in hospital from 19-6-2006 to 26-6-2006, Ex.A-11 is the discharge summary. Ex.A3 to A6 and A-9 are issued by our hospital. The injuries are grievous in nature. Patient is under treatment. The patient requires removal of ring fixator after completion of bone healing. As the patient is still under treatment and the bone healing is not fully completed yet, permanent and partial disability now cannot be assessed. The patient requires approximately another 3 to 6 months of treatment. The patient may have approximately require Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- for further treatment.” 13. Thus, it is clear that PW-2, in his first chief examination, did not say anything about partial and permanent disability since the patient, PW-1, was still undergoing treatment. In the second chief examination of PW-2 on 20.06.2008, PW-2 further stated as under: “On 30.10.2007 patient was admitted for removal of ring fixator and anaespheisa (anaesthesia) and cement plaster was given. He was discharged from hospital on the same day with an advice to use medicines. Subsequently after three weeks cement plaster was removed and synthetic leg brace was given. Ex.A.12 are bunch of medical bills issued by our hospital. Ex.A.13 is the discharge bill dated 30-10-2007 was issued by our hospital. He is still under my treatment as outpatient. Presently fracture has completely healed up but with malunion he has partial and permanent, physical disability approximately 50 to 60% in view of shortening of right leg stiffens (stiffness). He supposed to use leg brace and walking stick for a period of 2 to 3 years approximately. In view of the above disability patient cannot sit on the ground, cannot squat and cannot walk long distance.” 14. From a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-2 on two occasions, referred to above, it can be gathered that the claimant was operated on 19.02.2006 to right leg by Ilizarov method (applying ring fixator). In view of the above disability patient cannot sit on the ground, cannot squat and cannot walk long distance.” 14. From a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-2 on two occasions, referred to above, it can be gathered that the claimant was operated on 19.02.2006 to right leg by Ilizarov method (applying ring fixator). Further, on 30.10.2007, PW-1 was admitted for removal of ring fixator and he was discharged from the hospital on the same day by applying cement plaster with an advice to use medicines. Subsequently, after three weeks cement plaster was removed and synthetic leg brace was given. PW-2 in clear terms stated that PW-1 is supposed to use leg brace and walking stick for a period of two to three years approximately and in view of the partial and permanent disability of 50% to 60%, due to shortening of right leg stiffness, PW-1 cannot sit, squat and walk long distance. 15. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that PW-1 was not admitted in Remedy Hospital and PW-2 is not the Orthopaedic Surgeon, who treated PW-1. Since there is clear statement about shortening of right leg and stiffness and consequent 50% to 60% of partial and permanent physical disability, the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to grant compensation under the head of partial and permanent disability. 16. Insofar as the discrepancy with regard to injuries is concerned, it needs to be noted that in Ex.A3, wound certificate, two injuries are pointed out in medical terminology. On comparison of the said injuries in Ex.A3 with the statement of PW-2 given on 30.06.2007 wherein he stated about five injuries, this Court does not find any inconsistency or discrepancy as such. The five injuries pointed out in the chief examination of PW-2 on 30.06.2007 are, in fact, covered under the two injuries described in Ex.A3-wound certificate. From the evidence of PW-2, it can be seen that he has given better details of the two injuries covered under Ex.A3 by dividing them into five injuries. 17. Unfortunately, the Tribunal, on improper reading and analysis of Ex.A3, wound certificate, in comparison with evidence of PW-2, came to a wrong conclusion that the claimant failed to establish his disability. From the evidence of PW-2, it can be seen that he has given better details of the two injuries covered under Ex.A3 by dividing them into five injuries. 17. Unfortunately, the Tribunal, on improper reading and analysis of Ex.A3, wound certificate, in comparison with evidence of PW-2, came to a wrong conclusion that the claimant failed to establish his disability. It is, no doubt, true that PW-2, in his evidence on 20.06.2008, stated that injuries were healed, but PW-2 was very specific in stating that there is shortening of right leg stiffness and that PW-1 has to use leg brace and walking stick for two to three years and due to disability he cannot sit, squat and walk long distance. PW-2 further stated that it is not possible to correct malunion by way of surgery. 18. It is further unfortunate that the Tribunal in para-9 of the order, while referring to the photograph of the claimant pointed out that the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of left leg only and the other injuries are not visible. In fact, the photograph filed along with the claim petition, shows that PW-1 suffered grievous injuries on the right leg and steel ring fixator (Ilizarov frame) was applied in order to ensure stability and proper healing of the injury after surgical procedure. Since the grievous injuries are sustained by PW-1 on his right leg and he was operated by applying ring fixator and later removed and since PW-2 categorically stated that PW-1 sustained approximately 50% to 60% partial and permanent physical disability, this Court holds that PW-1 is entitled to compensation under the head of partial and permanent disability. PHYSICAL DISABILITY/FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY: 19. The percentage of functional disability need not be the same as that of body or physical disability. The Court has to grant compensation on the basis of functional disability or loss of earning capacity. The functional disability differs from physical disability depending upon the nature of injury and the nature of employment of the injured claimant. To be more precise “if physical disability is 25% the functional disability may be 75% and in a given case if the physical disability is 50% the functional disability may be 25%.” [See the illustrations in para-20 of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 ] 20. To be more precise “if physical disability is 25% the functional disability may be 75% and in a given case if the physical disability is 50% the functional disability may be 25%.” [See the illustrations in para-20 of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 ] 20. PW-2, Orthopaedic Surgeon, who treated PW-1, stated that the percentage of disability of PW-1 may be approximately 50% to 60%. PW-1 is supposed to use leg brace and walking stick for a period of 2 to 3 years approximately and in view of disability, the patient cannot sit on the ground, cannot squat and cannot walk long distance. PW-1 stated that he is doing wholesale business in tea powder. At the time of accident the claimant was aged 38 years. It is a prime earning age. Mobility is necessary for every employment or business activity. In view of the disability, PW-1 cannot be as active as compared to a normal person. The pain and suffering, disability due to shortening of leg, future medical treatment, partial loss of mobility and constant attention to the injured leg will definitely impact future business prospects of PW-1. There is no clear evidence given by PW-2 as regards functional disability. No doubt PW-1 categorically stated in his evidence that he is permanently handicapped. But in the absence of evidence of medical expert with regard to functional disability, this Court is compelled to do guess work and the functional disability is assessed at 30%, in the light of facts of this case and corresponding evidence. 21. So far as evidence of PW-2 is concerned, he being a medical expert and Orthopaedic Surgeon, who treated PW-1, his evidence could not have been casually brushed aside. The medical terminology, nature of injuries, percentage of disability etc. are aspects in which the Courts are not trained. The Courts are guided by medical jurisprudence or evidence of medical experts. So when a medical expert has given evidence with regard to percentage of disability, the Courts cannot view such evidence with suspect unless there is rebuttal evidence or any medical literature pointing out deficiencies in the evidence of medical expert. In case the Court doubts the expert's evidence, nothing prevented the Court to refer PW-1 to a medical board of a Government Hospital. In case the Court doubts the expert's evidence, nothing prevented the Court to refer PW-1 to a medical board of a Government Hospital. The motor accident compensation provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act being beneficial legislation, the endeavour of the Courts should be to do complete justice to the genuine and deserving claimants. Thus, in case of doubtful evidence or incomplete evidence of medical expert on the percentage of disability, the MACT is bound to refer the injured to a medical board of reputed hospital preferably a Government Hospital. This will serve two purposes. Firstly, to ensure that just and reasonable claim is awarded to a deserving claimant and secondly, to reject undeserving and false claims. 22. It will be useful to refer the judgment of Apex Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra) wherein all the relevant issues relating to disability, proof thereof and assessment of compensation are succinctly discussed and guidelines are laid down: “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 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 accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (‘Disabilities Act’ for short). The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (‘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. 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, 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. 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 or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently 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 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. (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar vs. D.M. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 ] 18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give 'ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. 19. 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. (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.” 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 330 , Rajan vs. Soly Sebastian, (2015) 10 SCC 506 , Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735 , Sri. Laxman @ Laxman Mourya vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2012 (1) UJ 0089, N. Manjegowda vs. Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2014 (1) AWC 20 (SC) determined percentage of functional disability of the injured claimant taking into consideration percentage of physical disability with specific reference to the nature of occupation/job of the claimant. Laxman @ Laxman Mourya vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2012 (1) UJ 0089, N. Manjegowda vs. Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2014 (1) AWC 20 (SC) determined percentage of functional disability of the injured claimant taking into consideration percentage of physical disability with specific reference to the nature of occupation/job of the claimant. Thus a daily wage employee/coolie having 50% physical disability may have 100% functional disability and a clerk doing desk job having 50% physical disability may have 25% functional disability. Following the ratio in the aforesaid decisions, though the disability as stated by PW-2 is 50% to 60%, since the claimant cannot sit, squat and walk long distance, the functional disability is taken at 30% as discussed supra. 24. Insofar as medical bills and expenses are concerned though there is no specific evidence of concerned hospital/doctor/medical shop to prove the same, it cannot be doubted that the injuries suffered by the claimant are grievous in nature. The claimant underwent complicated surgical procedures and he was operated thrice. The medical literature is available on https://healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/F-I/Ilizarov-frame relating to “Ilizarov procedure” which the claimant has undergone. The relevant information is extracted below: “This system helps provide a structural support to the limb and holds the broken bone fragments together so healing can take place over a period of time. It may be necessary to have this frame on your limb for a number of months. An Ilizarov frame is used to: Help heal complex fractures (complicated broken bones) Help heal severe skin or tissue loss Lengthen long bones if too much bone has been lost at the time of accident by allowing new bone to grow in between the two broken bone ends Correct congenital or traumatic deformity of the bones.” 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Suresh vs. Yusuf Sheriff, (2012) 11 SCC 281 assessed the medical expenses taking into account the nature of treatment of the injured claimant and the probable expenses incurred by him. (See paras 20 and 21). In the instant case, the medical expert, PW-2, Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed that PW-1 underwent treatment for three surgical procedures for grievous injuries and has sustained partial and permanent disability of 50% to 60% and that PW-1 requires approximately Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- for future expenses. Such evidence of PW-1 cannot be brushed aside casually, as done by the tribunal below. 26. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- for future expenses. Such evidence of PW-1 cannot be brushed aside casually, as done by the tribunal below. 26. The discharge bills (3 in number) issued by the Remedy Multispeciality under Ex.A4 amounts to Rs. 1,11,635/- medical prescriptions (29 in number) under Ex.A5 show that various medicines have been prescribed for PW-1 Ex.A6, medical bills (130 in number) include bills paid towards X-ray, diagnosis, pharmacy in the Remedy Hospital approximately would come to Rs. 70,863 Ex.A7, blood bank receipts (two in number) are for Rs. 1,600/- and Rs. 1,000/- Ex.A8, bills from Mahesh Travels (four in number), show that a sum of Rs. 7,000/- is paid towards travel expenses; Ex.A9, diagnosis reports (16 in number), show the results of the investigations; Exs.A10 and 11 are discharge summaries; Exs.A12 are few more bills pertaining to pharmacy bills, diagnosis reports and doctor consultation which are worth about Rs. 30,000/- Ex.A13 is settlement bill for Rs. 4,699/- issued by the Remedy Hospital; Ex.A14 are bunch of travel receipts issued by Mahesh Travel amounting to more than Rs. 20,000/- Ex.A15 is the Physically Handicapped certificate of PW-1 issued by the Remedy Hospital indicating partial permanent physical disability of about 50% to 60%. Taking into account the documentary evidence filed by the claimant under Exs.A4 to A14 and also the complicated surgeries underwent by the claimant, which is not in dispute, the total medical expenses incurred by the claimant would approximately come to Rs. 2,46,797/-. Applying the method of analysis for arriving at quantum of medical expenses in the judgment of N. SURESH's case (7 supra), the claim for medical reimbursement cannot by any standard be less than Rs. 2,00,000/- and accordingly under the head of medical expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded in lump-sum. 27. Though there is no evidence adduced by PW-1 to prove that he was doing business in tea powder and other articles and earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month, the notional income of the claimant is fixed at Rs. 5,000/- per month (since in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 ACJ 2436 ) it was held that Rs. 4,500/- can be taken as the income of a coolie in the absence of any evidence). In the instant case, since the claimant is stated to be doing business in tea powder, the income of Rs. 5,000/- per month (since in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 ACJ 2436 ) it was held that Rs. 4,500/- can be taken as the income of a coolie in the absence of any evidence). In the instant case, since the claimant is stated to be doing business in tea powder, the income of Rs. 5,000/- per month would be fair and reasonable. As such, the loss of annual income due to disability would come to Rs. 60,000 x 30% = Rs. 18,000/-. The age of the claimant, being 38 years, the multiplier relevant as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) is ‘15.’ Hence, the loss of future income would come to Rs. 18,000/- x 15 = Rs. 2,70,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 70,000/- towards pain and suffering is not interfered with. However, as regards the medical expenses, in view of the discussion above, Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded as lump sum as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- + Rs. 2,00,000/- + Rs. 70,000/- = Rs. 5,40,000/-. 28. Hence, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 5,40,000/- with proportionate costs. The award of the tribunal is modified as indicated above. The award shall relate back to the date of decree and the compensation awarded shall carry the interest at the rate and from the date specified by the Tribunal. 29. The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.