JUDGMENT : SANJAY DHAR, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short, 'Tribunal') whereby respondent No. 1-claimant has been awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 22,99,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% except on the component of loss of future income. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.07.2010 at about 7:30 p.m., a vehicle bearing Registration No. JK02K-7247 collided with a bus bearing Registration No. JK02N-8279 at Jhajjar Kotli bridge which resulted into injuries to the passengers travelling in the bus including respondent No. 1-claimant herein, who also received grievous injuries. The accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JK02K-7247 by its driver-respondent No. 2 herein. After suffering the injuries, the respondent No. 1-claimant was shifted to Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Jammu where he remained admitted from 09.07.2010 to 19.08.2010. On account of the accident, respondent No. 1-claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40%. 3. As per the claim petition, respondent No. 1-claimant was a Denter by profession and he was running his business from a Khokha. He was earning an income of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 36,000/- per month from this business. 4. After holding an enquiry, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, as a result of which, respondent No. 1-claimant sustained injuries. Accordingly, he was awarded pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The details of the compensation awarded to respondent No. 1-claimant vide the impugned award are given as under: (a) Loss of future income Rs. 21,84,000/- (b) Expenses of two attendants Rs. 40,000/- (c) Transport expenditure Rs. 10,000/- (d) Pain and Sufferings Rs. 30,000/- (e) Special diet and nutrition Rs. 10,000/- TOTAL Rs. 22,99,000/- 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal primarily on the ground that compensation awarded in favour of respondent No. 1-claimant is on higher side. According to the appellant-insurance company, the income of the claimant has been taken by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 10,000/- per month and without any income proof, the Tribunal was not justified in doing so. 6. According to the appellant-insurance company, the income of the claimant has been taken by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 10,000/- per month and without any income proof, the Tribunal was not justified in doing so. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and the record of the Tribunal. I have also considered the grounds of appeal. 7. Before coming to the question, whether the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of respondent No. 1-claimant on a higher side, it would be apt to notice the legal position as regards the principles which are required to be taken into consideration while assessing compensation in injury cases. 8. The basic judgment on the issue has been rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. 2011 (1) SCC 343 . The Court in the said case has explained in the following terms the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability: “General principles relating to compensation in injury cases: 5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, (1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376 , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)]. 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses-- Item (iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Award under the head of future medical expenses-- Item (iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability 8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities Act”, for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 9. But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%. 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. 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 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. [See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 SCALE 567 ]. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give “ready to use” disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily give liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or discharge certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of the claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local hospitals/medical colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. 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. 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.” 9. The Supreme Court further enumerated the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries in the following manner: 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 10. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in its various later judgments. The latest being Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 8510 of 2022 and Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2018. 11. From the aforesaid analysis of the law on the subject it is clear that loss of earning capacity of person who has suffered permanent disability depends upon several factors like the kind of disability suffered, the occupation of the injured, age of the injured and similar other factors. 12. Adverting to the facts of instant case, according to the claim petition, the respondent No. 1-claimant was earning an income of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 36,000/- per month. The claim petition is silent about the occupation of the injured. However, in his statement, the claimant has deposed that he was doing the job of denting of vehicles and that his monthly income was Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was running his business from a Khokha at Warehouse Jammu but he had no permission to set up a Khokha from the Municipal Corporation. He has further stated that he has not maintained any account with regard to his income nor does he possess any documentary proof relating to his income. He has clarified that the job of a denter is like that of a labourer. 13. There is no other evidence on record as regards the occupation and income of respondent No. 1/claimant. The claimant has admitted that he has not maintained any account as regards his income. He has clarified that the job of a denter is like that of a labourer. 13. There is no other evidence on record as regards the occupation and income of respondent No. 1/claimant. The claimant has admitted that he has not maintained any account as regards his income. He has further stated that he was running his business from a Khokha. All these factors show that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record as regards the income of the injured. In these circumstances, the income of the respondent No. 1-claimant becomes a matter of speculation and guess work. 14. The learned Tribunal has accepted the statement of the respondent No. 1-claimant that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but the fact that this statement of the injured has not withstood the test of cross-examination, has been conveniently ignored by the learned Tribunal. In these circumstances, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to accept the statement of the injured as regards his income as a gospel truth. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence as regards the income of the injured, the same should have been assessed on the basis of guess work having regard to the occupation of the injured and the fact that he was not running his business from a shop but was running it from a Khokha without there being any permission or registration. 15. One of the methods of assessing income of a person in such circumstances, is by placing reliance upon the rate of wages notified by the Government. The minimum wages fixed by the Govt. at the relevant time in cases of skilled workers engaged in the business of auto body fabrication was Rs. 200/- per day. The income of the respondent No. 1-claimant, therefore, can be taken by computing it @ Rs. 200/- per day. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the monthly income of respondent No. 1-claimant is taken as Rs. 6,000/- per month which works out to Rs. 72,000/- per annum. 16. The age of the injured at the time of the accident was admittedly 41 years. Same is the age taken by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the monthly income of respondent No. 1-claimant is taken as Rs. 6,000/- per month which works out to Rs. 72,000/- per annum. 16. The age of the injured at the time of the accident was admittedly 41 years. Same is the age taken by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in “[6]National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680 , there has to be an addition of 25% to the income on account of future prospects where the age of the injured is between 40 to 50 years in the cases relating to self-employed persons, but in the instant case, the learned Tribunal has increased the income of the claimant on account of future prospects by 30%, which is required to be scaled down to 25%. Accordingly, the annual income of the injured is to be taken as Rs. 72,000/- plus 18,000/- = Rs. 90,000/-. 17. The next question that comes up for consideration is as to what would be the loss of earning capacity of the injured as a result of the disability which he has suffered due to the accident. As per the certificate of disability relating to the petitioner which is on record, he has suffered 40% disability. Dr. Naresh Chopra, Orthopedic Surgeon has stated that the injured is suffering from post-traumatic bony ankylosis of right elbow. He has further stated that disability of 40% is of the affected limb and not of the whole body. He has also stated that with this disability, the injured will have difficulty in carrying out day to day activities and will not perform any exertional activity with his right hand. 18. The learned Tribunal has, after noticing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra) observed that the injured has suffered 100% functional disability because with the kind of disability which he has suffered, he would not be able to work as a Denter. Thus, according to the learned Tribunal, there has been a reduction of 100% earning capacity of the injured. 19. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra) while ascertaining the effect on the earning capacity of an injured, the learned Tribunal has to consider the matter in three steps. Thus, according to the learned Tribunal, there has been a reduction of 100% earning capacity of the injured. 19. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra) while ascertaining the effect on the earning capacity of an injured, the learned Tribunal has to consider the matter in three steps. It has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the disability; the second step would be to ascertain the nature of occupation that the injured was engaged in prior to the accident as also his age and the last step would be to ascertain as to whether the claimant would be totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent disability, claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions which he was earlier carrying or whether he was prevented from discharging his previous activities and functions but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he can earn his livelihood. 20. In the instant case, keeping in view the nature of disability, which has been suffered by the respondent No. 1-claimant, he certainly cannot perform the job of a Denter as the said job involves use of both upper limbs of body. As per the doctor, the respondent No. 1-claimant with the kind of disability which he has suffered cannot perform any exertional activity with his right hand. The job of denting definitely involves undertaking of exertional activities with both upper limbs. However, the question arises whether with this disability, the injured is incapacitated to such an extent that he would not be able to earn income by changing his vocation or by carrying out functions which involve lesser scale of activities. The learned Tribunal while holding that the injured has been totally incapacitated from earning any income has not discussed as to whether the injured could earn income by undertaking the job which involves activities of lesser scale. The Tribunal has, therefore, landed itself into error by ignoring this important aspect of matter. 21. The injured has suffered 40% disability of his right upper limb and his other limbs are perfectly alright and he can certainly use these limbs for undertaking a job which will involve lesser activities. The Tribunal has, therefore, landed itself into error by ignoring this important aspect of matter. 21. The injured has suffered 40% disability of his right upper limb and his other limbs are perfectly alright and he can certainly use these limbs for undertaking a job which will involve lesser activities. For example, he can sit on a shop as a salesman or he can even supervise the functioning of his business of denting-painting while engaging the services of other workers. However, in both these eventualities, the earnings of the injured would be drastically reduced and he will certainly suffer loss of earning capacity to a large extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the loss of earning capacity of the injured would be something around 80%. 22. The annual loss of income of respondent No. 1-claimant would therefore, work out to Rs. 72,000/-. The injured was of the age of 41 years at the time of the accident, therefore, applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of future income of the injured works out to Rs. 72000 x 14 = 10,08,000/-. So far as the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads, Expenses of attendants, Transport expenditure and Special Diet/Nutrition are concerned, the same appear to be justified. 23. However, the compensation under the heads Pain and Sufferings and Loss of amenities of life appear to be on lower side. As already noted, the injured after the accident has suffered fracture of his upper ulna and radius. He has undergone surgery and has remained hospitalized for about seven weeks. Having regard to the kind of injury which the claimant has suffered due to the accident, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the Head: Pain and Sufferings appears to be on a lower side. The same is required to be enhanced to Rs. 80,000/-. 24. The compensation on account of loss of amenities of life has been awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 25,000/-. As per the doctor, because of the disability suffered by the injured, he will have difficulty in carrying out day to day activities and he can not perform any exertional activity. 80,000/-. 24. The compensation on account of loss of amenities of life has been awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 25,000/-. As per the doctor, because of the disability suffered by the injured, he will have difficulty in carrying out day to day activities and he can not perform any exertional activity. The injured/respondent No. 1 who was aged 41 years at the time of the accident will have to live with this disability for the rest of his life and he would be hampered from performing his day to day activities with his working hand. Therefore, the compensation on account of loss of amenities is required to be enhanced and it would be just and proper to enhance the same to Rs. 40,000/-. 25. Accordingly, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated below: (a) Loss of future income Rs. 10,08,000/- (b) Expenses of two attendants Rs. 40,000/- (c) Transport expenditure Rs. 10,000/- (d) Pain and Sufferings Rs. 80,000/- (e) Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/- (f) Special diet and nutrition Rs. 10,000/- TOTAL Rs. 11,48,000/- 26. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 11,48,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum (except on the component of loss of future income) from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 27. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms along with connected applications.