JUDGMENT : 1. The claimant has preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in M.V. Claim Case No.18 of 2007 for the permanent disability suffered by the claimant. 2. The claimant of the was a minor aged 13 years at the time of the filing of the claim case for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-on account of permanent disablement suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident. After attaining majority he elected to continue his case and the name of his father was deleted from the cause-title vide order dated 26.07.12 . 3. As per the claimant case on 07.02.2006, he was going along with his friend Md. Alam on a bicycle as a pillion rider. It is said that a truck bearing registration No. WB-37-7451 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the cyclists. Claimant suffered serious injury in his right leg and was treated as indoor patient in Pandit Clinic, Dhanbad by Dr. Sanjay Choudhary. In course of treatment, due to critical injury, his toes and great toe had to be amputed. There was deep cut wound in the sole. As a result of injury, his foot got permanently damaged impairing the powers of the sole of the right foot. It is averred that he can neither sit nor stand without support. The details of treatment and expenditure has been given in para 13 of the claim application. 4. The learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,51,730/-based on the following findings:- i. 40% permanent disablement. ii. The claimant was a student of Class VIII at the time of accident and passed the Class X examination with 1st Class and was now pursuing his college education at the time the evidence was recorded by the Tribunal. He could walk freely without any help of person or crutch and therefore, the Tribunal held that claimant had not sustained disablement to such an accident which may stop his further studies. iii. Since the claimant was a non-earning person, therefore, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-was awarded as pecuniary damage in lump-sum and thereafter deduction of 60% was made from the said amount. Award of compensation was made of Rs.1,20,000/-under the head of loss of pecuniary damage, apart from this Rs.31,730/-was allowed as expenditure incurred in treatment and Rs.1,00,000/-in total was awarded for pain and suffering on account of accident. 5. Award of compensation was made of Rs.1,20,000/-under the head of loss of pecuniary damage, apart from this Rs.31,730/-was allowed as expenditure incurred in treatment and Rs.1,00,000/-in total was awarded for pain and suffering on account of accident. 5. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the claimant was a brilliant student and the injury substantially affected his future earning capacity. It is contended that the learned Appellate Court was in error of deducting 60% after awarding the lump-sum compensation amount. 6. Reliance has been placed on I. Kum Nazama Versus Managing Director NWKRTC; 2022(1) TAC 16 (SC) which also involved a 12 years boy in which Hon’ble Apex Court enhanced compensation under pain and suffering from Rs20,000 to Rs 3 lakh and future medical expenditure from Rs 10,000to Rs 3 lakh II. Beant Singh Versus Zoravar Singh; 2022(1) TAC 21 (SC) In this case the claimant had suffered injuries on his spinal cord and other parts of the body as a result of which he had been paralyzed. 7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company that the facts of the present case is different from the authorities relied upon. In Beant Singh case (supra) the deceased had suffered paralysis rendering him immobile, whereas in the present case the claimant himself has deposed that he could walk and move around without any support. 8. Admittedly the injured was a boy aged 13 years and a student of Class-VIII at the time of accident. The principle and guideline for assessing functional disability resulting in loss of earning capacity has been laid down in Anthony v. KARNATAKA SRTC, (2020) 7 SCC 161 , Hon’ble the Apex Court while following ratio of Raj Kumar case summarized the law for assessing functional disability in the following words: “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, the 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, the 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 shows 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. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent 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. 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 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”. 9. Here in the present case the following findings have been recorded by the learned Tribunal which is not in challenge: (i) The claimant was 13 years of age at the time of accident was a class VIII student at the time of the accident. (ii) Due to accident post trauma toes (R) foot contracture and sole of the right foot including all five toes were imputed causing 40% permanent disablement. (iii) Documentary evidence of Rs.31,730 has been adduced into evidence. (iv) The claimant deposed that he passed class VIIIth examination and was attending college on daily basis. (v) The Tribunal held it to be a case of Rs 3,00,000 lakh in pecuniary damage and then deducted 60% to compute the compensation. A final compensation of Rs 2,51,730 has been awarded. 10. Future has always eluded the grasp of the present. There are improbabilities and imponderables that lie in the future trajectory of life that it becomes difficult to reduce it into concrete and definite form. It becomes all the more difficult when the victim is a 13 years old student with infinite possibilities in his life. It has come in evidence as discussed above that after the accident, the claimant passed with 1st Division and at the time of recording of evidence, was in the College. How much the physical disability of 40% impacted and compromised his future prospect is something which cannot be mathematically calculated with precision. There were carrier opportunities in armed forces and police his life which would have finally enclosed with disability in his lower limb. It is for this reason that the Courts while assessing functional disability have to adopt a flexible approach. There were carrier opportunities in armed forces and police his life which would have finally enclosed with disability in his lower limb. It is for this reason that the Courts while assessing functional disability have to adopt a flexible approach. The notional income of Rs.15,000/-as provided under Schedule 2 of the M.V. Act, 1988, is a definite guideline but is not final word for assessing the income of non-earning person. The High Court of Kerala in 2019 SCC Online Ker 1533; Unnikrishna Pillai & Others Versus Appukuttan Pillai & Others which involved permanent disability to an ITC student aged 18 years assessed the compensation by taking notional monthly income of as Rs.3500/-considering the carrier graph of student. The High Court of Madras in 2018 SCC Online Mad 12324; Minor M. Hariharan Versus Subramaniyam & Another in case of 8 year school going child, who lost both his legs in the accident, computed the compensation taking a notional income of Rs.10,000/-per month. The Delhi High Court in 2018 SCC Online Del 11604; ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Gaurav Swaroop accepted a notional income of Rs.10,000/-per month, who was a school going student. 11. Here in the facts and circumstance of the case, the notional monthly income of the victim can be assessed to be Rs.4000/-per month. It has been deposed by the claimant that he was a student of college and was now able to move around without any aid. He was attending college and there does not seem that functional disability is more than medical disability. Therefore, the loss of earning capacity can be calculated by taking 40% as the medical disability. Sr. No. Heads Calculations 1. Annual notional income Rs. 4000/- X 12 = Rs.48,000/- 2. Loss of earning capacity on account of 40% disablement i.e Multiplicand Rs 19,200/- 3. Loss of future earning by taking a multiplier of 15 Rs.19,200X15 = Rs 2,88,000/- 4 Future Prospect @ 40% Rs.1,15,200/- 5. Medical Expenses Rs. 31,730/- 6 Pain and suffering on account of prolonged hospitalization and treatment Rs 1,00,000/- 7. Grand Total Rs. 5,34,930/- The claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,34,930/-with interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the date of filing of petition. The insurance company is accordingly directed to pay the compensation amount to the Tribunal within a month of this order. Grand Total Rs. 5,34,930/- The claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,34,930/-with interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the date of filing of petition. The insurance company is accordingly directed to pay the compensation amount to the Tribunal within a month of this order. It goes without saying that any amount earlier paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the final compensation amount. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimant after proper identification. The appeal is allowed as above. Consequently, I.A. No. 6536 of 2014 stands disposed of.