JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company, questioning the judgment and award of Mr. Gopal Kulshreshtha, the Additional District Judge, Court No.8/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar dated 16.09.2014, awarding compensation to the claimant-respondent for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. Mr. Sanjay Dixit, along with his friend, Jawahar Lal, was proceeding on foot, according to rule of the road, on the left-hand-side from Ram Narayan Bazar to Phool Bagh, located in District Kanpur Nagar on 23.09.2013 at about half past eleven in the night hours. As the two had traversed a small distance beyond the Baba Sweet House, a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. UP 78 AB 7211, that is said to have been driven very fast and negligently by its driver, came up behind them and hit the two on the rear side. Both Sanjay Dixit and his friend sustained grievous injuries. The passers-by, that include one Kanhaiya Lal and another Anil Kumar, amongst many others, called alarm and made efforts to apprehend the offending vehicle. The driver, however, sped away and escaped. The members of the public present, nevertheless, noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle. The Police reached the spot. The members of the public and the Police, together conveyed Sanjay Dixit and his friend Jawahar Lal for medical aid to a certain K.P.M. Hospital, where they were admitted. The two were administered first aid there. Mr. Sanjay Dixit, who has brought this claim petition, shall hereinafter be referred to as "the claimant". 3. Since the claimant had sustained grievous injuries, and the hospital where he was given first aid did not have the facility of doing an x-ray imaging, he was referred to Ursala Hospital. It is the claimant's case that until the institution of the claim petition, he was under treatment at the Ursala Hospital. The accident was reported to the Police by Bandi Lal, a brother of the claimant's friend and the other injured Jawahar Lal. On the report lodged by the aforesaid informant relating to the accident, Case Crime No. 156 of 2013, under Sections 279, 338 IPC, Police Station - Philkhana, District - Kanpur Nagar was registered. The claimant is an Advocate, practicing in the District Courts at Kanpur since the year 1996. The claimant's case is that he had a monthly income from his profession in the sum of Rs. The claimant is an Advocate, practicing in the District Courts at Kanpur since the year 1996. The claimant's case is that he had a monthly income from his profession in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, which was the source of his livelihood and that of his family members. As a result of the accident, the claimant says that he has become physically handicapped, the injury afflicting his right lower limb. It has become difficult for him to move about. He further says that the handicap has adversely affected the claimant's profession and, in turn, wiped out his income therefrom. It is also the claimant's case that he cannot do any work or activity in the same manner as he could before the accident. At the time of the accident, he was aged 44 years. The claimant asked for a total compensation of Rs. 29,33,000/-. The owner of the car, one Nazim Khan and the Insurance Company, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. were arrayed as opposite parties to the claims petition. Both the owner and the Insurance Company contested the claimant's case, denying the involvement of the offending vehicle, besides raising other pleas. It would be idle to refer to the pleadings of the parties, inasmuch as the limited issue that has been raised on behalf of the Insurance Company in this appeal is about the quantum of compensation. 4. There were five issues framed by the Tribunal and all of them were answered in favour of the claimant. In view of the limited challenge raised by the appellant, findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issues Nos. 1 to 4 are not required to be examined and must be held to have become final inter partes. It is the fifth issue alone that is the subject matter of this appeal and this issue (translated into English from Hindi) would read : "Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation from the opposite parties? If yes, how much and from which opposite party?" 5. Before the Court, the Insurance Company has criticised the award largely for its quantum, and there does not appear to be any issue about the party who has to answer the liability. 6. Heard Mr. Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. Vidya Kant Shukla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondents. 7. Mr. Before the Court, the Insurance Company has criticised the award largely for its quantum, and there does not appear to be any issue about the party who has to answer the liability. 6. Heard Mr. Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. Vidya Kant Shukla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondents. 7. Mr. Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has largely criticised the award on ground that the Medical Disability Certificate, on the foot of which the award is founded, was issued by a Medical Board, but the doctors, who scribed the certificate, were not produced in evidence to prove the precise extent and nature of the disability. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the claimant has to be compensated for the loss in his earning capacity, and that depends upon the functional disability sustained by him in consequence of the accident. He submits that assuming that the claimant has sustained a 50 percent physical disability, as certified by the Medical Board, the same would not ipso facto translate to a 50 percent loss of earning capacity. The kind of limitations that the victim has become subject to, in consequence of the disability, would have to be precisely ascertained by the Tribunal and its relative impact on his earning capacity, bearing in mind the nature of his profession, calling, trade or business. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no amputation of any limb or any injury that appears in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 8. Mr. Vidya Kant Shukla, learned Counsel for the claimant on the other hand, submits that the medical report certifying a 50 percent permanent disability is a public document, which is not required to be proved, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Ram Kushwaha v. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. through General Manager, 2015 (2) ADJ 578 . He has particularly placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 to submit that 50 percent disability would impact the actual earning capacity, which is required to be ascertained by the Tribunal, adopting a three-step test laid down by their Lordships in order to ascertain the functional disability. Mr. Mr. Shukla supports the decision of the Tribunal to submit that the claimant is an Advocate, and by the nature of his profession, he does not require mental faculties alone, but also physical fitness to inspire confidence with his clients and sustain his profession and the resultant earnings therefrom. In support of this contention, Mr. Shukla has placed reliance upon the holding of their Lordships in N. Manjegowda v. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 3 SCC 584 to submit that the profession of an Advocate does not require mental fitness alone, but also energetic functioning of all limbs of the body. 9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on both sides and perused the record. So far as objection of Mr. Srivastava about proof of the Disability Certificate dated 05.03.2014 issued by the Board of three doctors is concerned, there is little doubt that the document is a public document, issued by the Viklang Board, established in the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar. It is not required to be formally proved, in view of the provisions of Sections 74 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The principal about the non-requirement of formal proof of a Chief Medical Officer's disability certificate, for reason it is a public document, has the endorsement of a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Ram Kushwaha (supra). The said objection raised by Mr. Srivastava, therefore, does not have much force. The Tribunal has committed no error in acting on the Disability Certificate issued by the Viklang Board. This Court has also perused the same, and it is a dependable document. 10. The crux of the matter is that a particular percentage of physical disability cannot arithmetically translate into an equal measure of functional disability. Functional disability would mean the curtailment of the victim's overall capacity on account of injuries sustained in the accident to pursue his profession, avocation, calling, business or service and the resultant total of the loss of earning capacity. The degree of functional disability for the same measure of permanent disability medically certified may be different for different occupations, jobs or professions. It is not the doctors' opinion about the physical disability per se that would determine the functional disability. The degree of functional disability for the same measure of permanent disability medically certified may be different for different occupations, jobs or professions. It is not the doctors' opinion about the physical disability per se that would determine the functional disability. It is after ascertaining from the doctor the nature of limitations that would result from the injuries that the Court has to decide, bearing in mind the nature of the occupation, profession etc. of the victim, the degree and extent of loss to his earnings that would ensue. The principles to assess the extent of functional disability of the victim have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra), where it has been held : "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 disability (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. 14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. 14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of "loss of future earnings", if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may." 11. It has also been emphasised in Raj Kumar that the Tribunal in determining what just compensation would be, must play a proactive or inquisitorial role in ascertaining the percentage of functional disability with reference to the whole body. In Raj Kumar, it has further been held : "16. Be that as it may." 11. It has also been emphasised in Raj Kumar that the Tribunal in determining what just compensation would be, must play a proactive or inquisitorial role in ascertaining the percentage of functional disability with reference to the whole body. In Raj Kumar, it has further been held : "16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular, the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to "hold an enquiry into the claim" for determining the "just compensation". The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the "just compensation". While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a medical dictionary and a handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example, Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopaedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorised texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. 17. If a doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and, if so, the percentage. 19. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and, if so, the percentage. 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 the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the 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 to 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. 20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following illustrations: Illustration A.-- The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000 per month at the time of accident. As per doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows: (a) Annual income before the accident Rs.36,000 (b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) Rs.5400 (c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age 17 (d) Loss of future earnings (5400 × 17) Rs.91,800 Illustration B.-- The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000 per month. Calculation of compensation will be as follows: (a) Annual income before the accident Rs.36,000 (b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) Rs.5400 (c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age 17 (d) Loss of future earnings (5400 × 17) Rs.91,800 Illustration B.-- The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000 per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows: (a) Annual income prior to the accident Rs.36,000 (b) Loss of future earning per annum (75% of the prior annual income) Rs.27,000 (c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age 17 (d) Loss of future earnings (27,000 × 17) Rs.4,59,000 Illustration C.-- The injured was aged 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows: (a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an engineer Rs.60,000 (b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) Rs.42,000 (c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) 18 (d) Loss of future earnings (42,000 × 18) Rs.7,56,000 [Note.-- The figures adopted in Illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra [ (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298 ].] 12. In N. Manjegowda (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indeed emphasised the principle that an Advocate does not only require the possession of his mental ability, but also physical ability and fitness in order to command his clientele. In N. Manjegowda, it has been held : "12. In N. Manjegowda (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indeed emphasised the principle that an Advocate does not only require the possession of his mental ability, but also physical ability and fitness in order to command his clientele. In N. Manjegowda, it has been held : "12. In the present case the appellant has been found to suffer weakness of four limbs. He has to work slowly and requires help in climbing steps, cannot run, cannot write sharply and speedily with his right hand. With his left hand he cannot lock the shirt button and has difficulty in holding of spoon for self-feeding. He was having partial sensory loss all over his limbs and lacked proper coordination in all four limbs. It is the medical opinion that for these reasons the appellant requires an assistant for daily routine work. In view of aforesaid medical assessment of the appellant's condition after sustaining injuries in the accident and in the light of whole body disability of 50%, it would be certainly very difficult for the appellant to practise as an advocate and compete with others so as to command confidence and acceptability of general clients. Unlike many other professions, legal profession requires not only sharp and focused mind but also good health and ability to put in hard work within a limited time-frame. The requirement of impressing the client at the age of 36 is much more. It is only when a young advocate has built a good impression and reputation, then in the evening of his life he may continue to command professional work on the basis of his acquired knowledge and reputation. A young advocate is bound to suffer huge professional loss on account of injuries as have been sustained by the appellant and the condition in which the doctor found him." 13. This Court finds that the claimant has indeed established his income preceding the accident by wholesomely proving it through his annual Income Tax Returns for the five assessment years preceding the event. The returns have been more than successfully proved by examining the relevant functionary from the Income Tax Department, who has testified before the Tribunal. He is one Brijesh Kumar, a Senior Assistant in the Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Kanpur Nagar. The said witness has appeared before the Tribunal as P.W.3 and proved the returns. The returns have been more than successfully proved by examining the relevant functionary from the Income Tax Department, who has testified before the Tribunal. He is one Brijesh Kumar, a Senior Assistant in the Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Kanpur Nagar. The said witness has appeared before the Tribunal as P.W.3 and proved the returns. The Tribunal has rightly inferred the victim's overall annual income at a figure of Rs. 1,55,000/- preceding the accident. That finding is flawless. 14. During the hearing, Mr. Srivastava pointed out that the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 15, according to the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, where that is the indicated multiplier for a person in the age group of 40-45 years. It was pointed out by Mr. Srivastava that going by the table in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the appropriate multiplier for a victim in the age group of 40-45 years is 14; not 15. 15. Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the claimant very fairly does not dispute this proposition and indeed, this Court is of opinion that that the law about the multiplier is well settled. It has to be governed by the table laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), which, going by the age bracket of the victim, would inevitably lead to a multiplier of 14. The Tribunal, therefore, has erred in applying the multiplier of 15. 16. The most crucial question, however, that remains to be answered is whether the 50 percent physical disability certified by the Medical Board translates for the claimant into an arithmetic equivalent of functional disability, leading to a proportionate loss in his earnings. A perusal of the finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 5 constrains this Court to remark that the Tribunal has hardly bestowed any consideration to this most vital question. The Tribunal has proceeded in the manner that opining the annual income of the claimant to be a figure of Rs. 1,55,000/-, the loss of it has been inferred to be 50 percent on the basis of the 50 percent disability ipso facto. There is absolutely no assessment done by the Tribunal about the impact upon the claimant's income post accident, or so to speak, corresponding functional disability that has arisen from the 50 percent certified physical disability. 1,55,000/-, the loss of it has been inferred to be 50 percent on the basis of the 50 percent disability ipso facto. There is absolutely no assessment done by the Tribunal about the impact upon the claimant's income post accident, or so to speak, corresponding functional disability that has arisen from the 50 percent certified physical disability. The determination of functional disability in this case may require some further probe by the Tribunal into the nature of the physical disability and how it impacts the claimant's capability and physical ability to go about his profession. It may also require some consideration of the impact of the accident on the professional prospects of the victim after eliminating irrelevant factors. This Court may not be understood to mean that 50 percent physical disability sustained by the claimant could not have led to an equal measure of functional disability. Depending on the nature of the injury, the manner it would work to impact the claimant's ability to undertake his profession, is required to be assessed. It could turn out to be an equal measure of functional disability, that is to say, 50 percent, or may be more than that or less than it. This may require some enquiry to be made from one of the doctors on the Medical Board, who have certified the physical disability. The doctor's evidence would not be assessed to doubt the correctness of the opinion of the Medical Board, but to ascertain the nature of the physical disability for the purpose of inferring, on its basis, its precise impact on the claimant's professional prospects. This evidence is not at all there on record. The doctor was never called by the claimant; nor by the Tribunal for the limited purpose indicated above. This Court is of opinion that one of the doctors on the Medical Board, who have issued the Permanent Disability Certificate, should be summoned in order to enable the Tribunal to ascertain the precise nature of the claimant's disability and then assess its percentage impact on his functional disability. This Court is of opinion that one of the doctors on the Medical Board, who have issued the Permanent Disability Certificate, should be summoned in order to enable the Tribunal to ascertain the precise nature of the claimant's disability and then assess its percentage impact on his functional disability. The Permanent Disability Certificate dated 05.03.2014 issued by the Medical Board records the following opinion: Áekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd dqŒ@Jherh@Jh lat; nhf{kr vk;q 44 o"kZ iq=@iq=h@iRuh LoŒ :i fd'kksj nhf{kr fuoklh ¼iw.kZ vkoklh; irk½ 112@164 csuk>kcj jksM+ vk;Zuxj Fkkuk Lo:i uxjA ftyk dkuiqj uxj vkt esjs lEeq[k viuh 'kkjhfjd tkap gsrq mifLFkr gq;s@gqbZA lE;d 'kkjhfjd tkap ds mijkUr muds 'kjhj esa fuEufyf[kr fodykaxrk ikbZ xbZ tks LFkkbZ Ádkj dh gSA mijksDr fodykaxrk ds vk/kkj ij budk fodykaxrk Áfr'kr yxHkx 50 Áfr'kr gSA budk igpku fpUg Raise mole Rt. side face gSA buds ¼nk;sa@ck;sa½ vaxwBs dk fu'kku fuEuor~ gSA 17. The Tribunal, while writing the impugned judgment, has not analysed this medical opinion expressed in medical terms in order to assess its impact on the claimant's functional disability or impairment in pursuing his profession. 18. At one stage of his submissions, Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the claimant has invited the attention of the Court to the Tribunal's failure to award anything under the head of future prospects, bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The future prospects are no longer limited to the salaried class, but extend to the self-employed professionals, businessmen and others. Mr. Shukla impressed upon this Court the fact that in cases of injury, not only fatal accident, future prospects are to be awarded. He has drawn this Court's attention to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jagdish v. Mohan and others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 . There is little doubt that future prospects ought to be considered for the claimant, which the Tribunal did not do, going by the principles of law governing the subject then declared. Nevertheless, the claimant is entitled to an assessment about his future prospects. 19. Learned Counsel for the claimant urged this Court to go about the exercise of assessing future prospects based on well settled principles, which he said this Court could do without a claim in that behalf or a cross appeal. Nevertheless, the claimant is entitled to an assessment about his future prospects. 19. Learned Counsel for the claimant urged this Court to go about the exercise of assessing future prospects based on well settled principles, which he said this Court could do without a claim in that behalf or a cross appeal. He invited the attention of this Court to the holding of the Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others, (2020) 4 SCC 413 . That principle is not in doubt and this Court would not hesitate to pass an award, directing just compensation, without a cross appeal relating to future prospects or some other heads like trauma, suffering and pain that have escaped the Tribunal's determination. But since this Court is of opinion that the issue of functional disability is required to be ascertained by the Tribunal on the basis of the doctor's evidence and other relevant factors, it is best left to the Tribunal to go into the issue of future prospects as also compensation to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering and lost amenity, besides expenses on future medical treatment, if found involved on further evidence being led about it. 20. This order of remand and the consequent setting aside of the impugned award, would not mean that the sum of money that has been paid to the claimant under the interim orders of this Court and the impugned award, since set aside by this order, would have to recovered from the claimant right away. The said compensation would remain with the claimant to abide by the final determination about the claimant's extent of entitlement to compensation. 21. For the sake of eschewing any confusion, it is made clear that all other findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award are affirmed, except the finding relating to functional disability arising from the certified permanent disability of 50 percent. The Tribunal is also required to consider award of compensation under the head of future prospects that the claimant would be entitled to, besides loss under the head of pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident, the inability of the victim to lead a normal life, together with its amenities and any future medical expenses related to the accident. The Tribunal is also required to consider award of compensation under the head of future prospects that the claimant would be entitled to, besides loss under the head of pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident, the inability of the victim to lead a normal life, together with its amenities and any future medical expenses related to the accident. These matters would be gone into by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence led before it or evidence that the Tribunal comes by, upon inquiring into what would be just compensation in this case. 22. In the result, this appeal succeeds and stands allowed in part. The impugned award is set aside, with a remand of the claim petition to the Tribunal now competent to hear the claim petition. The Tribunal shall hear and decide the claims petition afresh in accordance with the remarks in this judgment and on issues made over to it for determination. The necessary evidence shall be examined by the Tribunal for the purpose of passing an award that determines just compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. The sum of money already paid to the claimant under the Tribunal's award, since set aside in terms of the interim order passed in this appeal, shall not be recovered from the claimant and shall abide by the final determination to be made relating to the claim. The Tribunal shall proceed to decide the claim afresh within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing both parties, that is to say, the Insurance Company and the claimant. Both the parties shall appear before the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar on 21.03.2022. 23. Let this order be communicated to the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance) and let the lower court records be sent to the said Tribunal by the Office, forthwith.