JUDGMENT : The present miscellaneous appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award of compensation dated 19.05.2017 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 84/2014, whereby and whereunder the appellant – Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.3,45,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as compensation to the claimant / injured Meera Devi. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Meera Devi, aged about 42 years was returning to her home after selling vegetables and reached near Hansdiha-Godda main road on 26.03.2014 at about 3:00 P.M. meanwhile, a Bolero Vehicle bearing registration no. JH-09P-1393, being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed her, causing severe injuries on her head and waist and she became unconscious. She was brought to Saraiyahat Hospital, from where she was referred to higher center and got her further treatment at Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Bhagalpur and after long treatment, she cannot recover from her injuries and permanent Disability Certificate was issued by Civil Surgeon, Dumka showing 40% permanent disability (Pmt. Trochlea deficiencies right lower limb. It is alleged that claimant was engaged in vegetable selling and earning Rs.200/- per day and due to accident, she has lost her job and claimed Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation. 3. Upon service of summons, the owner of the offending vehicle and the United India Insurance Company Limited (appellant) appeared and filed their respective written statements. 4. It appears that on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were settled for adjudication:- (i) Whether the claim case is maintainable in its present form or not? (ii) Whether the claimant has got valid cause of action to file the suit? (iii) Whether the vehicle bearing registration no. JH-09P/1393 was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. Bokaro on the alleged date of occurrence? (iv) Whether at the time of occurrence vehicle No. JH-09P/1393 as driven by the driver rashly and negligently, causing injury to the sister of informant namely Meera Devi? (v) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation U/s 166 of M.V. Act as mentioned in claim case? (vi) Whether the claimant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as claimed for? 5. (v) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation U/s 166 of M.V. Act as mentioned in claim case? (vi) Whether the claimant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as claimed for? 5. On behalf of claimants following documents have been marked exhibit in this case:- (i) Exhibit-1:- C.C. of F.I.R. of Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 50/2014. (ii) Exhibit-2:- C.C. of Charge Sheet of Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 50/2014. (iii) Exhibit-3:- Original disablement certificate of Medical Board. (iv) Exhibit-4 to 4/3:- Original Ultra Sound Report, X-ray report and two discharge slips of J.L.N. Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur. Mark for identification:- (i) ‘X’ : Photo copy of certificate of registration. (ii) ‘X/1’ : Photo copy of Driving License. (iii) ‘X/2’ : Photo copy of Insurance Certificate. (iv) ‘X/3’ : Photo copy of injury report of injured Meera Devi. 6. On behalf of claimant, three witnesses have been examined and on behalf of defendants neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced. 7. After considering oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,45,000/- as depicted in the following chart:- I. Monthly income is Rs.2,000/- per month Rs.2,000/- x 12 = Rs.24,000/- Rs.24,000/- per annum II. Using multiplier (As per age of deceased multiplier will be 14) Rs.12,000/- x 14 Rs.3,36,000/- III. Deduction 1/3rd amount towards maintenance-NIL Rs.3,36,000/- Rs.3,36,000/- IV. (1) General expenses Rs.3,000/- (2) Loss of consortium Rs.3,000/-. (3) Loss of Estate Rs.3,000/- Total Rs.9,000/- Rs.3,36,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.3,000/- =Rs.3,45,000/- Rs.3,45,000/- V. Total amount will be given to the claimant by O.P. No. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Rs.3,45,000/- 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that Disablement Certificate of the claimant was not proved in accordance with law and author of the said document was not examined. It is further submitted that in the Disablement Certificate, relied upon by the claimant, the affected part of the body was not mentioned and to what extent, there was impairment of function of that particular limb and viability of its cure also has not been mentioned. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has no criteria to assume purported Disablement Certificate to be worth consideration. The injuries sustained by the claimant also do not fall under any of the category mentioned in Schedule-I of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has no criteria to assume purported Disablement Certificate to be worth consideration. The injuries sustained by the claimant also do not fall under any of the category mentioned in Schedule-I of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, it is a simple case of injury, which does not affect the functional disablement of body of the claimant. Therefore, applying multiplier to the annual income of the claimant and other count of compensation are not warranted in law. Compensation in the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate is not applicable here. The learned Tribunal has committed grave error of law in applying multiplier formula and assuming the percentage of physical disability equivalent to 100% loss of earning capacity of claimant and arrived at wrong conclusion. As such, the impugned Award is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that there is no substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant. The learned Tribunal has considered the every pros and cons of the case. The medical treatment undergone by the claimant and entire family dependents upon her sole income, her future loss of job and has arrived at right conclusion in passing the award of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,45,000/-. There is no valid ground calling for any interference in the said award, which is fit to be confirmed and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have gone through the record of the case in the light of submissions of the parties. The case of claimant is based on injuries sustained in the accident on her head and waist caused permanent disablement to the extent of 40%. From perusal of Disablement Certificate (Exhibit-3), although not proved by any member of the Board of Doctor, but marked exhibit on admission. It is obvious from the x-ray report (Exhibit-4/1) dated 26.03.2014 of the injured claimant that she has sustained fracture on pubic bone and iliac bone. She was prescribed medicines in her discharge slip and several other medicines were prescribed later on, which continued about six months, as per last prescription (Exhibit-4/3). Disability Certificate (Exhibit-3) shows Pmt. Trochlea deficiencies of right lower limb, which is to the extent of 40% permanent disability, non-curable. 11. She was prescribed medicines in her discharge slip and several other medicines were prescribed later on, which continued about six months, as per last prescription (Exhibit-4/3). Disability Certificate (Exhibit-3) shows Pmt. Trochlea deficiencies of right lower limb, which is to the extent of 40% permanent disability, non-curable. 11. The oral witness examined by the claimant has also corroborated her testimony regarding her suffering due to accidental injuries caused on head and waist. The claimant is still restricted in her free movement due to incurable injury. 12. The above documentary evidence has not been rebutted by the Insurance Company at any stage of the proceeding before the learned Tribunal and no issue was settled as regards extent of disability of the claimant. As regards functional disability of the claimant no cross-examination was conducted. 13. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla and others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 elaborating provisions of Order XII Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that a party objecting to the admissibility of document must raise its objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked, and that too at the instance of a party which had proved the same and wherefor consent of the other party has been obtained, the party proving the document cannot be permitted to turnround and raise a contention that the contents of the document had not been proved and thus, should not be relied upon. 14. Admittedly, the accident has happened in the year 2014 and this appeal is also pending since 2018, but the claimant has not been adequately compensated. Hence, remand of the case for proving Disablement Certificate of the claimant will cause unnecessary delay and increase trauma of the claimant. Therefore, this appeal is decided on the basis of materials available on the record. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 set out the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. Para-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:- General principles relating to compensation in injury cases 5. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 set out the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. Para-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:- General principles relating to compensation in injury cases 5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('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 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. 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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. 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. Decision of this Court and 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. 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 accidents 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 ('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. 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. 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, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that 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. 16. For ascertaining the compensation amount in case of permanent Disablement, the impact on vocation of the injured is an important factor and criteria. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. 16. For ascertaining the compensation amount in case of permanent Disablement, the impact on vocation of the injured is an important factor and criteria. 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. There may be circumstances where the disability functioning of particular limb may not result in lessening the earning capacity. 17. In the instant case, actually the claimant is a vegetable seller and young lady of 42 year. The fracture of iliac bone and pubic bone has certainly impaired her strength of that particular limb to the extent of 40% and her vocation as a vegetable seller has also been grossly impaired for the reasons that she cannot move to bring vegetable from whole sale market or engage in growing vegetables in the field, rather she can hardly sit on the shop continuously only for 1 or 2 hours, therefore, it may be reasonably concluded that her earning capacity as vegetable seller has been impaired approximately 50%. 18. Thus, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and recalculated as follows:- Sl. No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment for one year @ Rs.2,000/- per month [Rs.2,000/- x 12] Rs.24,000/- 2. Loss of future earning on account of disability (50% of the annual income). [Rs.12,000/- x 14] Rs.1,68,000/- 3. Pain & Sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Conveyance Rs.10,000/- 5. Medical Expenses Rs.3,000/- 6. Loss of expectation of life Rs.20,000/- 7. Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.4,25,000/- 19. The entire amount calculated herein shall be Rs.4,25,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 20. [Rs.12,000/- x 14] Rs.1,68,000/- 3. Pain & Sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Conveyance Rs.10,000/- 5. Medical Expenses Rs.3,000/- 6. Loss of expectation of life Rs.20,000/- 7. Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.4,25,000/- 19. The entire amount calculated herein shall be Rs.4,25,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 20. However, the amount already paid either under Section 140 Motor Vehicles Act and pursuant to the Award passed by the learned Tribunal shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid to the claimant within six weeks from the date of this order by the Insurance Company. 21. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 19.05.2017 is hereby set aside / modified and the instant Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed with aforesaid modification.