JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the original claimant challenging the award dtd. 7/4/2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in TS (MAC) 47 of 2017. 2. The factual background of the case is as under: The appellant had gone to the house of Ratan Ch. Das (respondent No.1) for painting work on 12/10/2016. At about 2.30 'O' clock in the afternoon, the appellant requested said Ratan Ch. Das to drop him at his home at Hatipara, Agartala on his motor bike. Pursuant to the request of the appellant, said Ratan Ch. Das took the appellant on his motor bike and left for the home of the appellant. Just before reaching home, appellant slipped from the motor bike and received fatal injuries. The injured appellant was immediately taken to A.G.M.C and G.B.P Hospital at Agartala from where he was referred to Peerless Hospital in Kolkata on 13/10/2016. He received treatment in Peerless Hospital as an indoor patient from 13/10/2016 to 28/10/2016. After his discharge from the said hospital, he received follow up treatment in various hospitals within and outside the State. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Sec. 166 M.V. Act in the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.14,44,000.00 from the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the offending motor bike. 3. The owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1) appeared and filed written reply to contest the case. In his written reply he admitted the accident. He, however, denied his negligence and claimed that there was fault in the road on which they were travelling. According to the said respondent, on a particular place of the road few bricks had come off which escaped his notice, as a result he fell with his motor bike at the place and the claimant appellant who was a pillion rider on his motor bike also slipped from the vehicle and received injuries. The respondent claimed that his vehicle was insured for 3rd party risk and the insurance company was liable to pay compensation. 4. The insurance company (respondent No.2) also contested the case by filing separate written reply wherein they claimed that insurance company could be saddled with the liability to pay compensation only if a valid insurance policy was produced by the owner of the offending vehicle and it was proved that his driving licence and other documents of his vehicle were in operation. 5. 5. The claimant as well as the opponents led evidence at the Tribunal to prove their respective cases and the Tribunal after hearing the parties and appreciating evidence led by them disbelieved the case of the claimant and by an award dtd. 7/3/2019 and dismissed the claim petition observing as under: "8. As the claimant petitioner Sri Rakesh Debnath has failed to establish the fact that he had sustained bodily injury out of the alleged road traffic accident, obviously the claimant petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation under Sec. 166 of the MV Act. Hence, Issue No. 2 also hereby decided in negative and against the claimant petitioner." 6. The claimant-appellant has challenged the judgment of the tribunal in MAC Appeal No.37 of 2019 before this Court. The said appeal was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dtd. 5/8/2020 in MAC Appeal No.37 of 2019 whereby the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal with a following directions: "[11] In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with following directions: (i) The award of the Claims Tribunal dtd. 7/3/2019 is set aside. (ii) It is held that the claimant received bodily injuries in an accident which took place on 12/10/2016 when he was travelling on the motorcycle as a pillion rider, the opponent No.1 being the rider of the motorcycle. It is further held that such an accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the opponent No.1. (iii) The proceedings are remanded back to the Claims Tribunal on the quantification of the compensation that should be awarded to the claimant and to decide whether the insurance company is liable to satisfy such award. While doing so, the claims Tribunal shall permit the claimant to produce further evidence of his disability at the present stage. He would be examined by the medical board. The disability certificate that may be issued shall be brought on record. The claimant will be required to examine the panel doctor. The insurance policy, if not on record, shall be allowed to be brought on record." 7. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Tribunal quantified the compensation to be awarded to the claimant and held that the insurance company (respondent No.2) was liable to pay the award. While quantifying the compensation Tribunal relied on the fresh disability certificate dtd. The insurance policy, if not on record, shall be allowed to be brought on record." 7. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Tribunal quantified the compensation to be awarded to the claimant and held that the insurance company (respondent No.2) was liable to pay the award. While quantifying the compensation Tribunal relied on the fresh disability certificate dtd. 28/10/2020 and the oral evidence of Dr. Uttam Kr. Bhattacharjee, Eye Specialist, District Disability Board, West Tripura who issued the disability certificate. 8. By the award dtd. 7/4/2021, Tribunal quantified the compensation as under: On the said amount Tribunal awarded 9% annual interest from the date of filing of the claim petition at the Tribunal till disbursement. 9. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant has filed this appeal mainly on the following grounds: (i) The Tribunal determined the compensation without following the settled principles. (ii) Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that 30% visual disability amounted to 100% functional disability since the claimant was a painter. Mr. S. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the claimant appellant therefore, urges the court to raise the compensation in terms of the settled principles. 10. Mr. G. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company opposes the contention of the counsel of the appellant and submits that the Tribunal has awarded more than the appellant actually deserved. Counsel contends that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference in appeal. Learned counsel therefore, urges the Court for dismissing the appeal. 11. The facts that the claimant received injuries in vehicular accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle have already been decided by this Court by the judgment and order dtd. 5/8/2020 in MAC Appeal No.37 of 2019. The insurance policy (Exbt.C) has also been proved at the Tribunal which would demonstrate that the offending motor bike of respondent No.1 namely, Ratan Ch. Das was insured with the respondent insurance company and the said policy was in operation from 31/1/2016 to 30/1/2017. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 12/10/2016. Obviously therefore, the policy was in operation when the accident took place which covered 3rd party risk arising out of the accident. 12. Das was insured with the respondent insurance company and the said policy was in operation from 31/1/2016 to 30/1/2017. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 12/10/2016. Obviously therefore, the policy was in operation when the accident took place which covered 3rd party risk arising out of the accident. 12. Now, the only question which arises for consideration before this court is whether the Tribunal awarded appropriate compensation to the claimant appellant. It is obvious that Dr. Uttam Kr. Bhattacharjee who issued the disability certificate dtd. 28/10/2020 testified at the Tribunal on 29/1/2021 and asserted as follows: "On 28/10/2020 I being an Eye Specialist in District Disability Board, West Tripura, have examined one Sri Rakesh Debnath and after careful examination, I certified that his is a case of low vision having 30% permanent disability. I accordingly, issued the certificate of permanent disability. The witness has duly identified the certificate (Exbt.24) and his signature thereon. Signature is marked as Exhibit 24/1." The Tribunal by the fresh award dtd. 7/4/2021 has granted only a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 for such permanent visual disability of the appellant which is completely erroneous and against the settled principles. 13. Tribunal lost sight of the fact that permanent loss of 30% vision of the claimant seriously affected his occupation because he was a painter. In these circumstances, Tribunal should have applied fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach to determine appropriate compensation by applying the standard multiplier method. 14. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down broader principles for determination of compensation for such cases wherein the Apex Court held as under: "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. 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. 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 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 v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 ). 12. 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. 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood." 15. In Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 341 also, the Apex Court held that the Tribunal in all cases should adopt equitable principles and reasonable approach for determination of just compensation and observed as under: "15. It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the tribunal and the court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a "just compensation". It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of "just compensation" obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and courts. This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal and the court must be on a large peripheral field. At the same time the concept of "just compensation" obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and courts. This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal and the court must be on a large peripheral field. Both the courts and the tribunals in the matter of this exercise should be guided by principles of good conscience so that the ultimate result becomes just and equitable (see Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharastra SRTC AIR 1998 SC 3191 )" 16. In the given case the claimant who was a painter suffered from 30% permanent visual disability. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited to (supra) and the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, it would be appropriate to reassess the compensation payable to the claimant in terms of the settled principles laid down in this regard. 17. In the award dtd. 7/4/2021 Tribunal did not assess any loss of income of the claimant which is completely erroneous. In his claim petition as well as in his evidence claimant appellant claimed that he was a painter and his monthly income was Rs.12,000.00. His statement in his examination-in-chief in this regard is as under. " I was a painter by profession and by performing my painting works I used to earn Rs.12,000.00 (Rupees twelve thousand) per month but now due to disturbances of my right eye, I cannot paint properly and cannot earn" 18. In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of owner of the offending vehicle as well as on behalf of the insurance company, his claim with regard to his occupation and income was not denied. Even there was no suggestion to the witness that he made a false statement with regard to his occupation and income. 19. OPW-1 i.e. Ratan Ch. Das, owner of the offending vehicle also supported the fact that the claimant was a painter because on the date of accident, the claimant was engaged by him to paint his building. On his way back home the accident occurred. 20. Taking into consideration the unrebutted testimony of the claimant appellant, his monthly income, is worked out to be Rs.12,000.00. 21. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. On his way back home the accident occurred. 20. Taking into consideration the unrebutted testimony of the claimant appellant, his monthly income, is worked out to be Rs.12,000.00. 21. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi and others; reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 claimant would be entitled to 40% increase of the said income as he was a self employed person and he was below the age of 40 years. Therefore, his prospective monthly income would come to Rs.16,800.00 (Rs.12,000.00 X 40% = 4,800/-) after addition of said 40%. 22. Looking to his disability, there shall be 30% loss of his earning capacity. Therefore, loss of his monthly income for the purpose of determination of compensation would be Rs.5040.00 (Rs.16,800.00 X 30%). As a result, loss of his annual income would be Rs.5040.00 X12 = 60,480/-. 23. Since the appellant was 26 years old at the time of the accident, multiplier of 17 would be applicable in this case as per decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma(Smt.) and others Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another: reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, as such, his total future loss of income would come to Rs.60,480.00 X 17 = Rs.10,28,160.00. 24. Evidently, after the accident the appellant was confined to bed for treatment for about a month for which his actual loss of income is assessed at Rs.12,000.00. 25. Tribunal seems to have assessed the cost of medicine at Rs.3,00,000.00 on the basis of the bills and vouchers produced by the claimant. Therefore, there is no point in reducing the amount which has been assessed by the Tribunal. 26. For pain and suffering, Tribunal has assessed Rs.1,00,000.00 to the claimant which should be reduced to 25,000/-.Further, Rs.20,000..00 is awarded as attendant charges and a sum of Rs.30,000.00 may be awarded for travelling expenses. 27. In view of the above, the compensation payable to the appellant is re-assessed as under: 28. The amount of 9% annual interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to 7% annual interest which shall be paid on the said awarded amount of Rs.14,10,000.00 from the date of presentation of the original claim petition at the Tribunal till disbursement. Amount already paid by the insurance company, if any, shall be adjusted. The amount of 9% annual interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to 7% annual interest which shall be paid on the said awarded amount of Rs.14,10,000.00 from the date of presentation of the original claim petition at the Tribunal till disbursement. Amount already paid by the insurance company, if any, shall be adjusted. Remaining amount along with accrued interest shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court within a period of 8(eight) weeks from today. 29. In terms of the above, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Send down the L.C record.