JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. - Appeal and Cross Appeal arise out of a common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala dated 29.07.2017 passed in Case No.T.S. (MAC) 91 of 2012. 2. This case involves unfortunate facts where a person, who received serious bodily injuries in a vehicular accident which took place on 24.07.2011 and it was caused due to sole and gross negligence of the driver of Kolkata State Transport Corporation bus, has not yet received adequate compensation for his monetary and non-monetary losses. 3. On 24.07.2011 in the evening hours, the claimant Amit Kumar Paul was standing at Shyambazar bus stop in Kolkata waiting for his bus, the bus of Kolkata State Transport Corporation collided with him causing serious injuries. According to the claimant, the bus jumped on the footpath where he was standing and caused serious multiple injuries on his legs. He filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agartala claiming compensation under various heads. At one stage, the Claims Tribunal passed an award dated 20.06.2013 and awarded a compensation of Rs.14, 92, 160/-. In Appeal, the High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal by an order dated 14.10.2016 upon which a fresh award was passed by the Tribunal in which the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.9, 17, 777/-. This award the claimant has challenged in the MAC Appeal. The Kolkata State Transport Corporation has filed Cross Objection. 4. Sole question in both the proceedings is of computation of compensation. I will therefore discuss evidence relevant to this question alone. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 47 years. He was running business of selling cloth in Agartala. He claimed that his income was Rs.25, 000/- per month. He had produced a disability certificate dated 15.05.2013 issued by the District Disability Medical Board which indicated that the claimant had suffered locomotor disability to the extent of 50%. However, this certificate stated that the same would be valid for a period of 5 years and a further assessment would be necessary after the said period. 5. The Tribunal in the impugned award granted Rs.50, 000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.6, 43, 205/- for medical treatment charges, awarded Rs.60, 000/- for loss of earning for one year @ Rs.5, 000/- per month and Rs.14, 572/- was awarded for transportation charges. 5. The Tribunal in the impugned award granted Rs.50, 000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.6, 43, 205/- for medical treatment charges, awarded Rs.60, 000/- for loss of earning for one year @ Rs.5, 000/- per month and Rs.14, 572/- was awarded for transportation charges. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.1, 50, 000/- by way of lump sum compensation towards 'loss of amenities, deprivation of enjoyment of life, future discomfort including the cost of special diet, transportation charges etc.' Strangely, the Tribunal recorded that the disability of the claimant was temporary and therefore, there was no need for awarding compensation for future loss of income. 6. In my view, the Tribunal has committed several errors which need to be corrected in this Appeal. To begin with, we may combine the two separate heads of compensation i.e. pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life by awarding Rs.2, 00, 000/- as has been done by the Tribunal, however, separately. Compensation of Rs.6, 43, 205/- towards medical treatment needs no modification since the same has been awarded on the basis of documents produced by the claimant. So also the sum of Rs.14, 572/- awarded for transportation remains as it is. 7. Entire focus should be on awarding actual loss of income and future loss of income. For such purpose, we would have to assess the probable income of the claimant at the time of accident and project his permanent physical disability over the loss of his earning capacity. In this context, we may refer to the evidence on record. 8. About the age of the claimant being 47 years on the date of accident, there is no serious dispute. Regarding his income in his deposition before the Tribunal, he had stated that he was earning Rs.25, 000/- per month from his business of selling cloth which on account of his injuries he was unable to do any more. Considering that claimant was engaged in the business of selling cloth in Agartala city, estimating his income on the date of accident at Rs.10, 000/- per month would be a fair estimate. In his deposition, the claimant had stated that after the accident he was treated as an indoor patient for several days and thereafter, had to be treated as an outdoor patient for a long periods. In his deposition, the claimant had stated that after the accident he was treated as an indoor patient for several days and thereafter, had to be treated as an outdoor patient for a long periods. We have noticed that he had spent more than Rs.6, 00, 000/- towards his medical treatment which was reimbursed by the Tribunal since such expenditure was matched by vouchers and payment receipts. It can thus be seen that the claimant must have received very serious injuries for which extensive medical treatment was needed. The Tribunal was correct in believing that for one full year after accident he would not even able to resume his work. @ Rs.10, 000/- per month, the claimant would be paid Rs.1, 20, 000/- towards loss of actual income. 9. Considering that the claimant was aged about 47 years and was self-employed, as per the decision of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 there would be 25% rise for future income, making the prospective income of the claimant at Rs.12, 500/-. As per the decision of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , a multiplier of 13 would have to be applied. 10. Coming to the question of loss in earning capacity, the Tribunal committed a very serious error in believing that the injury was temporary. To begin with, the disability certificate produced by the claimant, which was issued by the District Disability Medical Board on 15.05.2013 stated that the condition was progressive and reassessment would be needed after 5 years and therefore the certificate had a validity of 5 years from the date of issue. I fail to understand how the Tribunal thought that the disability of the claimant was transient. 11. In any case, such disability certificates which come with an expiry date always cause difficulties in assessing compensation to motor accident victims. In the present case, in an order dated 30.06.2020 passed in I.A. No.02 of 2019, the Court had highlighted this aspect and required the District Disability Medical Board to reassess the disability of the claimant and issue a certificate which would indicate the nature of permanent disablement that the injury had left. In the present case, in an order dated 30.06.2020 passed in I.A. No.02 of 2019, the Court had highlighted this aspect and required the District Disability Medical Board to reassess the disability of the claimant and issue a certificate which would indicate the nature of permanent disablement that the injury had left. Pursuant to this order, the claimant had appeared again before the District Disability Medical Board and after examining the claimant, a disability certificate dated 22.07.2020 was issued. Relevant portion of which reads as under: '(A) He is a case of Locomotor Disability (B) The diagnosis in his case is DIFFICULTY TO MOVEMENT DUE TO MULTIPUL FRACTURE BOTH LOWER LIMB WITH STIFFNESS, RT KNEE JOINT. (C) He has 65% (in figure) Sixty Five percent (in words) Permanent in relation to his as per guidelines (to be specified).' 12. As per this certificate, thus, the claimant suffers from locomotor disability. He finds it difficulty to move due to multiple fractures in both lower limbs and with stiffness in the right knee joint. According to the Disability Board, this had resulted into 65% permanent disability. The previous disability certificate which was produced by the claimant had also highlighted that there was restricted movement due to multiple fractures on both lower limbs and there was a shortening of right leg by two inches. 13. It can thus be seen that due to the multiple fractures suffered by the claimant, there was permanent disability. His movements were restricted. His right leg has been shortened. The fresh disability certificate issued by the Medical Board does not indicate that the disability is of 65% of the body as a whole. Considering the nature of injuries and the description of the disability, it must be construed that such disability was 65% of the lower limbs. A rough estimation therefore the same may be projected at 35% of the body as a whole. Considering the nature of the business, the claimant was engaged, this disability would certainly reduced his earning capacity. I may, therefore, accept 35% reduction in his earning capacity on account of such permanent disablement. The computation of future loss of income, therefore, would be as under: (i) Prospective income Rs.12, 500/- per month. (ii) @ 35% loss of earning capacity there would be loss of earning capacity of Rs.4, 375/- per month or Rs.52, 500/- per annum. I may, therefore, accept 35% reduction in his earning capacity on account of such permanent disablement. The computation of future loss of income, therefore, would be as under: (i) Prospective income Rs.12, 500/- per month. (ii) @ 35% loss of earning capacity there would be loss of earning capacity of Rs.4, 375/- per month or Rs.52, 500/- per annum. Applying multiplier of 13 future loss of income would work out to Rs.6, 82, 500/-. 14. The total compensation payable to the claimant therefore would be as under: Pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life:Rs.2, 00, 000 Medical treatment:Rs.6, 43, 205 Transportation charges:Rs. 14, 572 Actual loss of income:Rs.1, 20, 000 Future loss of income:Rs.6, 82, 500 Total:Rs, 16, 60, 277 (Rupees Sixteen lakh, sixty thousand two hundred seventy seven) 15. The additional compensation shall be paid by the respondent with simple interest @7% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment. 16. The Appeal and Cross Objection are disposed of accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Records may be transmitted to the Trial Court.