JUDGMENT : 1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by MACT (Court No.4), West Tripura, Agartala in TS (MAC) 98 of 2014 and the method used for awarding the compensation, aggrieved appellant has filed the present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act for short) for enhancement of compensation. 2. The factual background of the case is as under: On 17.11.2013 at about 5 O’clock in the evening appellant Gobinda Debbarma was going to a grazing field called Dhanmura in his village from his home to bring back his cow from the grazing field. On the way, the offending vehicle carrying registration No. TR-01-W-1539 (Tripper Truck) hit him. As a result, he sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident said Gobinda Debbarma was shifted to AGMC & GBP hospital at Agartala in a very critical condition. His brother Rabipada Debbarma reported the matter to police by lodging a written FIR at Melagarh police station on 22.11.2013. The informant alleged in his FIR that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. 3. Based on the FIR, Melagarh PS case No. MLG 147 of 2013 under sections 279 and 338 IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet No. 18 of 2014 dated 26.04.2014 under sections 279 & 338 IPC against the driver of the vehicle namely Babul Das, Son of Tapan Das of Jatrapur, Sepahijala judicial district. 4. Alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, said Gobinda Debbarma being the petitioner filed a petition in the motor accidents claim tribunal (Court No.4) at Agartala claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on the ground that owing to the accident he became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity. 5. Owner of the vehicle and its insurer were made parties as respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively. By filing written objection, respondent owner of the offending vehicle claimed that his vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 2) and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. He also claimed in his written statement that Babul Das was the driver of his vehicle and on the date of accident he had a valid driving licence. According to the owner, liability to pay compensation lied with the insurer. 6. He also claimed in his written statement that Babul Das was the driver of his vehicle and on the date of accident he had a valid driving licence. According to the owner, liability to pay compensation lied with the insurer. 6. The insurance company (respondent No.2) by filing written statement contended that the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation unless a valid insurance policy is produced and its currency is proved by the owner of the vehicle. It was also pleaded by the insurance company that amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the injuries sustained by him. 7. In the course of trial of the case, claimant petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. Dipti Bikas Roy, a locomotive specialist as PW-2. He also relied on various documents including the disability certificate (Exbt.7) issued by the District Disability Medical Board, West Tripura, Agartala. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 8. In his examination in chief, petitioner Gobinda Debbarma claimed that as a labourer he used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month. As a result of the disability suffered by him from the said accident, he lost his earning capacity. The accident made him unable even to pursue his domestic works. He stated that he appeared before District Disability Medical Board for assessment of his disability and the board certified that he suffered from 60% permanent disability. The claimant produced the said disability certificate issued by the District Disability Medical Board which was admitted into evidence as Exbt.7. The claimant was cross examined by the owner as well as by the insurance company. It was suggested to the claimant on behalf of the insurance company that he was not entitled to any compensation. It was also suggested to him that his claim was excessive. The claimant denied both the suggestions. 9. The other witness who supported the case of the claimant was Dr. Dipti Bikas Roy, a locomotive specialist who issued the disability certificate dated 04.09.2014 certifying that the claimant petitioner Gobinda Debbarma suffered 60% permanent disability from the said accident. 10. It was also suggested to him that his claim was excessive. The claimant denied both the suggestions. 9. The other witness who supported the case of the claimant was Dr. Dipti Bikas Roy, a locomotive specialist who issued the disability certificate dated 04.09.2014 certifying that the claimant petitioner Gobinda Debbarma suffered 60% permanent disability from the said accident. 10. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which claimant suffered physical disability to the extent of 60% due to Osteoarthritis in both of his knee joints. The tribunal held that on the date of occurrence, insurance policy (Exbt.C) was in operation, the vehicle was duly registered vide registration certificate (Exbt.A) and accused driver Babul Das was also possessing a valid driving licence (Exbt.B). The tribunal then proceeded to quantify the compensation. 11. Since the appellant was stated to be a day labourer, tribunal assessed his daily income at Rs.250/- and by multiplying said daily income by 30 days, tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.7,500/- per month. Taking into consideration 60% disability of the appellant, tribunal worked out his loss of monthly income at (Rs.7,500 x 60%) = Rs.4,500/-. Thus, the annual loss of income of the appellant was assessed at (Rs.4,500 x 12) = Rs.54,000/-. Without applying the multiplier laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the tribunal multiplied the said annual loss of income by 5 years since in the disability certificate (Exbt.7) reassessment of the disability was recommended after 5 years and the certificate was made valid upto 04.09.2019. Having applied the said method, the tribunal worked out the loss of future income of the appellant at Rs.2,70,000/- and awarded compensation as under: Sl. No. Claim Amount Awarded (in INR) i. Loss of future income (Rs.54,000 x 5) 2,70,000/- ii. Actual cost of medicine 6,750/- iii. Attendant, Diet & Conveyance charges 43,500/- iv. Post operative care & nursing 30,000/- v. Future treatment 15,000 Total 3,65,250/- The tribunal allowed 9% annual interest on the said sum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. 12. Heard Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Attendant, Diet & Conveyance charges 43,500/- iv. Post operative care & nursing 30,000/- v. Future treatment 15,000 Total 3,65,250/- The tribunal allowed 9% annual interest on the said sum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. 12. Heard Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company. 13. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the method of calculation of loss of future income of the appellant adopted by the tribunal was completely erroneous. According to Mr. Nandi, learned counsel of the appellant, in this case of permanent disability the tribunal should have applied the multiplier laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) without awarding compensation in lump sum. In support of his contention Mr. Nandi, learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE VS. PRATAP SON OF ZHAMPANNAPPA LAMZANE & ANOTHER reported in (2018) 9 SCC 450 wherein the Apex Court applied multiplier 17 while granting compensation to the 29 years old claimant for determination of his loss of future income who suffered from permanent disability to the extent of 75% in consequence of the accident. It is further contended by Mr. Nandi, learned counsel that the disability certificate (Exbt.7) nowhere suggested that the condition of the claimant was likely to improve after 5 years. Therefore, the tribunal erroneously assessed the loss of future income of the appellant only for a limited period of 5 years. In this regard Mr. Nandi has relied on judgment dated 24.01.2020 of this High Court in MAC App. No. 07 of 2019 (Smt. Pinki Rani Roy Vs. Smt. Lekha Roy Choudhury & Ors.). On the same issue Mr. Nandi has also relied on the judgment dated 29.01.2021 of this High Court in MAC App. No. 07 of 2018 (Sri Amit Kumar Paul Vs. The Managing Director, Kolkata State Transport Corporation). According to Mr. Nandi considering the occupation of the appellant and nature of disability suffered by him, his disability should have been considered by the tribunal as 100% functional disability instead of 60% disability. It is further contended by learned counsel that even in case of a non salaried and self employed person, income does not remain the same all along the life. Nandi considering the occupation of the appellant and nature of disability suffered by him, his disability should have been considered by the tribunal as 100% functional disability instead of 60% disability. It is further contended by learned counsel that even in case of a non salaried and self employed person, income does not remain the same all along the life. Therefore, in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 it has been held by the Apex Court that while determining income of a self employed person an addition of 25% shall be made where the deceased is between the age of 40-50 years. According to Mr. Nandi, learned counsel the same principle shall apply to the present case in determining the income of the appellant who has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60%. It is submitted that the appellant was 43 years old when the accident took place and as such he would be entitled to an addition of 25% for determination of his loss of future income. Finally it is submitted by Mr. Nandi, learned counsel that in view of the age of the appellant at the time of the accident, multiplier 14 would apply for determination of his future loss of income in terms of the method laid down by the Apex Court in the case Sarla Verma (Supra). 14. Mr. B. Majumder, counsel of the insurers on the other hand contends that the tribunal awarded a just and fair compensation to the appellant and there is no reason to interfere with the said award of the tribunal. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel urges for dismissal of the appeal. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 341 held that the tribunal should adopt equitable principles and reasonable approach for determination of just compensation. In the said judgment the Apex Court has held 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. In the said judgment the Apex Court has held 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. 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 case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 while determining the compensation awardable to the claimant appellant who suffered 45% permanent disability from the accident the Apex Court observed as follows: “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. 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. 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. 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.” 17. With regard to determination of functional disability, this High Court in case of Samir Ch. Das Vs. Md. Jamal Hossain & Anr. in MAC App. No. 3 of 2019 has succinctly held that conversion of physical disability into functional disability is not a task of medical board. Such assessment should be made by the concerned Claims Tribunal. Observation of this Court in this regard is as under: “11. However, any such assessment of conversion of physical disability into functional disability is the task to be performed by the Claims Tribunal and not the medical expert. The deposition of the doctor before the Tribunal had to be confined to his assessment of the locomotive disability sustained by the claimant on account of the injury. He ought not to have been asked to assess the level of functional disability. To the Court’s query he had sufficiently made it clear that the claimant could carry out light work but not heavy work.” 18. In the given context it is not denied that the appellant is as day labourer by occupation. He ought not to have been asked to assess the level of functional disability. To the Court’s query he had sufficiently made it clear that the claimant could carry out light work but not heavy work.” 18. In the given context it is not denied that the appellant is as day labourer by occupation. As per the disability certificate (Exbt.7) he has been suffering from locomotor disability since both of his legs have been affected in consequence of the said accident. It is stated in the disability certificate that Osteoarthritis in both knee joint has been detected which has caused 60% disability to the appellant. PW-2, Dr. Dipti Bikas Roy, a locomotive specialist has stated in her evidence that on 04.09.2014 i.e. after about 10 months of the accident he assessed the disability of the appellant in the District Disability Medical Board and found his disability to the extent of 60%. The PW made the following statement at the tribunal with regard to the affect of such disability: “He cannot live his normal life due to his disability, even he cannot do any manual work. He cannot perform any work with 60% disability.” 19. Admittedly the appellant is a day labourer and obviously he would be unable to pursue his occupation as a result of the disability suffered by him. The locomotive expert who has been examined by the tribunal as PW-2 has stated in unequivocal terms that the appellant would not be able to carry on manual activities due to such disability. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar (Supra) this court is of the view that in no case the functional disability of the appellant would be less than 60% in this case. Moreover, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ANANT SON OF SIDHESHWAR DUKRE (Supra) the tribunal should have applied multiplier of 14 in this case as per Sarla Verma (Supra) for determination of the loss of future income of the appellant. The submission of learned counsel that the tribunal should have made 25% addition for determination of the income of the appellant in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is also acceptable. 20. The submission of learned counsel that the tribunal should have made 25% addition for determination of the income of the appellant in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is also acceptable. 20. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited to supra and keeping in view the decisions of this High Court which have been relied upon by learned counsel of the appellant, compensation granted to the appellant requires re-calculation. The submission of his counsel that his earning capacity has been totally reduced to 100% is not acceptable. 60% reduction in his earning capacity on account of permanent disability certified by the District Disability Medical Board is therefore accepted and on that basis, the computation of his future loss of income would be as under: (i). Undisputed monthly income of the appellant assessed by the tribunal is Rs.7,500/- @ Rs.250 per day x 30 days. (ii). As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) there would be 25% increase for future prospect since the appellant, a self employed person, was between the age of 40 to 50 years. Therefore, his prospective monthly income would come to Rs.9,375/- after addition of said 25% of the monthly income assessed by the tribunal. (iii). Looking to his disability, there shall be 60% loss of his earning capacity. Therefore, loss of his monthly income for the purpose of determination of compensation would be (Rs.9,375 x 60%) = Rs.5,625/-. (iv). As a result, loss of his annual income would be (Rs.5,625 x 12) = Rs.67,500/-. (v). Since the appellant was 43 years old at the time of accident multiplier of 14 would be applicable as per decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and as such his total future loss of income would come to (Rs.67,500 x 14) = Rs.9,45,000/- which will be added by his actual loss of income for the period of his detention in hospital including the period in which he could not even partially carry out his occupation. (vi). Undisputedly, appellant was a day labourer. The knee joints of both of his legs were seriously affected as a result of which he suffered 60% locomotor disability that too was assessed after 10 months of the accident. (vi). Undisputedly, appellant was a day labourer. The knee joints of both of his legs were seriously affected as a result of which he suffered 60% locomotor disability that too was assessed after 10 months of the accident. Evidently, the appellant was hospitalized on 17.11.2013 and discharged on 10.01.2014 which means that he was detained in hospital for about 2 months. The extent of his injury and the disability suffered by him clearly indicate that he could not have been able to do any work for about a period of 6 months. Therefore, for the said period of no activity, he would be entitled to (Rs.7,500 x 6) = Rs.45,000/-. After addition of said Rs.45,000/- with the aforesaid future loss of income the total loss of income would come to (Rs.9,45,000 + 45,000) = Rs.9,90,000/-. (vii). The tribunal has awarded Rs.6,750/- as cost of medicine and medical treatment on the basis of the cash memos and prescriptions submitted by the claimant. Therefore, the said assessment does not warrant any interference. (viii). Similarly, tribunal has awarded Rs.43,500/- as conveyance and attendant which does not also call for any interference. (ix). For pain, shock and suffering the tribunal has rightly granted Rs.30,000/- to the appellant. (x). For future treatment expenses, the tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- which also appears to be rational in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. (xi). The tribunal failed to appreciate that as a result of the accident, the appellant became disabled which deprived him of the enjoyment of a full life and the things and amenities which he would have enjoyed had he not been disabled by the said accident. This non pecuniary loss should also have been compensated by the tribunal. This court is of the view that Rs.60,000/- should be awarded to the appellant under this non pecuniary head for loss of future amenities of life. (xii). The total compensation after final calculation would therefore be as under: Sl. No. Compensation Amount Awarded (in INR) i. Loss of future income 9,45,000/- ii. Loss of actual income 45,000/- iii. Cost of medicine and medical treatment 6,750/- iv. Conveyance and attendant charges 43,500/- v. Pain, shock & suffering 30,000/- vi. Future treatment expenses 15,000/- vii. Loss of future amenities of life 60,000/- Total 11,45,250/- (Rupees eleven lakhs forty five thousand two hundred fifty) 21. Loss of actual income 45,000/- iii. Cost of medicine and medical treatment 6,750/- iv. Conveyance and attendant charges 43,500/- v. Pain, shock & suffering 30,000/- vi. Future treatment expenses 15,000/- vii. Loss of future amenities of life 60,000/- Total 11,45,250/- (Rupees eleven lakhs forty five thousand two hundred fifty) 21. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,65,250/- as compensation to the appellant and directed that the amount would carry 9% annual interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. Since the insurance company has not challenged the order, the rate of interest on the amount awarded by the tribunal from the date of filing till payment would remain unchanged. In terms of the order passed by this court the appellant would receive an additional compensation of (Rs.11,45,250 – 3,65,250) = Rs.7,80,000/- which will carry 7% simple interest from today till actual payment. The amount of compensation already paid by the insurance company in terms of the award of the tribunal, if any, shall be deducted from the total amount of compensation and the rest would be paid by depositing the same before the tribunal within 6 weeks from today. 22. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. 23. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. LC records be sent to the tribunal.