JUDGMENT : T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2005 in MVOP No. 169 of 2001 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP for convenience. 3. The claimant had applied to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries and Disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.03.2000. 4. The claimant’s case is that on 03.03.2000 at about 6.30 AM, near Sai Baba Temple on Satyavedu - Srikalahasthi road, while he was travelling in the Tractor - Trailer bearing No. TN-21-B-5721 and 5720 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) as a coolie, the offending vehicle’s driver drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned the vehicle to a side. As a result, the inmates of the trailer slipped and fell. 5. The 1st respondent filed counter submitting that the 1st respondent has insured the vehicle with the 2nd respondent under the policy; the 1st respondent sold the vehicle to Subramanyam, and the same was transferred in favour of Subramanyam with effect from 27.12.1999, as on the date of the accident, Subramanyam was the owner of the offending vehicle and not the 1st respondent. The said Subramanyam insured the offending vehicle with Oriental Insurance company from 22.08.2001 to 21.08.2002. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter stating that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondents, RWs. 1 and 2 got examined and Ex.B1 copy of the policy was marked. 8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs. 55,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 2 and 3 and directed interim compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded under no fault liability shall be deducted out of total compensation. 9. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs. 55,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 2 and 3 and directed interim compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded under no fault liability shall be deducted out of total compensation. 9. The Tribunal has found that the claimant travelled in the tractor only as a coolie; his risk is covered under Ex.B1 policy. The contention raised by the Insurance company regarding the driving licence of the offending vehicle is negatived by the Tribunal by holding that the presumption is that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The said findings of the Tribunal are not challenged by the respondent-Insurance company by filing an appeal or cross objection. It has attained finality. 10. Heard both the learned Counsel. Perused the record. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the claimant suffered permanent Disability to the extent of 30% and ought to have awarded compensation accordingly. The Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable compensation under the head of pain and suffering; the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and does not commensurate with the Disability suffered by the appellant/claimant. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations. 13. Now the point for determination is: Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires enhancement? POINT: 14. The claimant, who was examined as PW-1, stated his evidence that after the accident, he was admitted to Community Health Centre, Sathyavedu, and later shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati, for treatment for about 20 days as an in-patient. Due to the pelvic injury that he sustained in the accident, he could not pass urine as usual. In the said circumstances, the doctors of SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati, have fixed a bag for passing urine as shown in the photo in the disability certificate. He has to change the bag monthly, costing about Rs. 500/-. In the meantime, he has been treated at Stanley Hospital on several occasions for operating his pelvis injury. He had taken treatment in Stanley Hospital, Chennai, on 24.07.2000 for about 11 days and from 25.05.2004 to 03.06.2004 and finally from 17.08.2004 to 13.10.2004. During the said period of treatment, he was operated on for pelvic injury. 500/-. In the meantime, he has been treated at Stanley Hospital on several occasions for operating his pelvis injury. He had taken treatment in Stanley Hospital, Chennai, on 24.07.2000 for about 11 days and from 25.05.2004 to 03.06.2004 and finally from 17.08.2004 to 13.10.2004. During the said period of treatment, he was operated on for pelvic injury. Even now, the bag fixed for passing urine was not yet removed. 15. On perusal of Ex.A2, it is clear that the claimant has suffered the following injuries: (i) Lacerated injury irregular in shape 2 x 1 cm, left pivotal region bone-deep. (ii) Lacerated injury 2 x 1 cm over 1/3rd of the right leg anterior aspect wounds presence deforming present. (iii) Two lacerated injuries, each measuring ½ x ½ cm and ¼ cm x ¼ cm, anterior aspect of right leg ankle joint. (iv) Abrasion of 6 x 5 cm, oval medial aspect of the right knee. (v) Abrasion 8 x 4 cm over the left gluteal region. (vi) Traesvense lacerated injury 4 x 1 cm over the medial Mallcohs of right leg. (vii) Tenderness over the right hip joint. 16. To prove the claimant's treatment, he got examined by PW-2 Dr. P. Periyaswami, Assistant Professor of Urology at Government Hospital, Chennai. He also stated in his evidence that the treatment undergone by the claimant. PW-2’s evidence shows that on 20.09.2004 he conducted surgery to correct the urethral blockage caused by the stricture. Before the operation, the patient was passing urine through a tube fixed in the abdomen and after surgery, the tube was removed. 17. To prove the Disability sustained by the claimant, he got examined by PW-3 Dr R.V. Raveendra babu, who deposed that he examined PW-1 to issue a disability certificate on 13.06.2002 and found that the claimant was treated for comminuted fracture of the right tibia, fibula, right navicular and pubic bone of both sides of the pelvis with the inability to pass urine normally. He observed a malunited fracture of the right tibia with stiffness of the right knee and ankle joint. He could not squat and walk long distances due to pain in the fracture area, and the claimant suffers from a 30% disability. Ex.A5-Disability certificate establishes the said case of the claimant. He observed a malunited fracture of the right tibia with stiffness of the right knee and ankle joint. He could not squat and walk long distances due to pain in the fracture area, and the claimant suffers from a 30% disability. Ex.A5-Disability certificate establishes the said case of the claimant. The Tribunal has also observed that Ex.A5 shows the claimant suffers a permanent disability of 30% due to a malunited fracture of the right tibia. The Tribunal has not accepted the disability certificate on the ground that PW-3 is not the doctor who treated the injured. Still, the Tribunal failed to note that PW-2, who provided treatment to the claimant, has also deposed concerning the treatment undergone by the claimant. 18. Learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant strenuously contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in not considering the disability certificate issued by the PW-3 doctor certifying the Disability sustained by the claimant. Learned Counsel further contends that any qualified doctor can assess the loss of Disability vis-a-vis earning capacity, as is done in this case, and the exception taken by the Tribunal that the doctor who has treated the claimant was not examined cannot be fatal to the case of the claimant. 19. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent insurance company contended that the Tribunal rightly disregarded the disability certificate. 20. In the decision of this Court in Syed Saleem vs. Abdul Shukur and Another, 2007 ACJ 491 wherein it is held that: The time gap in obtaining the disability certificate cannot be viewed in isolation as the Disability cannot be assessed immediately on the next day of sustaining the injuries. Still, naturally, the wounds must be healed to assess the Disability. The time taken in obtaining the disability certificate, in the instant case, is not too long to doubt its genuinity. 21. The evidence of the PW-3 doctor concerning his certification of Disability sustained by the claimant is to be accepted. However, he has not treated the claimant, as he is a qualified doctor. I am fortified by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Charan Singh's case. The relevant portion of Para 9 of the judgment reads thus: As it is, Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect the interests of Workmen who are the victims of accidents during their employment. Therefore, the clear-cut method has been stipulated in the Act itself. The relevant portion of Para 9 of the judgment reads thus: As it is, Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect the interests of Workmen who are the victims of accidents during their employment. Therefore, the clear-cut method has been stipulated in the Act itself. In case of scheduled injuries, even in the absence of medical evidence, the compensation will automatically follow as per the schedule of the said Act. But, the difficulty conies only in the case of non-scheduled injury, in respect of which assessment has to be made by the qualified medical practitioner as contemplated under the Act. From this, it cannot be concluded that the competent medical practitioner should only treat the workers concerned. If that is to be accepted, it leads to several anomalies. The doctor who treated the workers may be unavailable for various reasons, and the workers cannot be expected to stay at a particular station forever. Further, the permanent Disability cannot be assessed immediately on the next day of sustaining the injuries. To assess the permanent Disability naturally, wounds have to be healed to assess the permanent Disability concerning the loss of earning capacity. The learned Single Judge has recorded finding in his order that the doctor who treated the workers ought to have been examined, and the certificate issued by the doctor after the lapse of time ought not to have been relied on. But under the provisions of the Act and the rules made there, there is no such requirement to prove the Disability by examining the same doctor who treated the workers and to obtain such a certificate from the same doctor. In view of the settled legal position stated above, this Court views that the Tribunal should have considered the disability certificate established by the claimant. 22. In the Judgment of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 the Apex Court held that: 6. 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 treatment period and recuperation after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remaining life of the injured. Permanent Disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body found existing at the end of the treatment period and recuperation after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remaining 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. However, he can perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activities. Total permanent Disability refers to a person's inability to perform avocation or employment-related activities due to the accident. 8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability due to 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 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. 9. Therefore, the Tribunal has first to decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent Disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and determine concerning 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 concerning 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, it will proceed to ascertain its extent. 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, it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of the 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. 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 concerning 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, based on evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as a 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 concerning the extent of permanent Disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal concerning the evidence in its 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. 23. The evidence on record shows that as of the date of the accident, the claimant was aged about 28 years. The multiplier applies to the age group of 26-30 years as per guidelines of Apex Court in the decision reported in Sarla Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 and others in “17.” The said finding of the Tribunal is not disputed by the respondent in O.P. 24. The case of the claimant is that he was working as a coolie. Taking into consideration the fact that no evidence is brought on record to establish his earnings as claimed, this Court is inclined to treat him as unskilled labour, whose notional can be fixed at Rs. The case of the claimant is that he was working as a coolie. Taking into consideration the fact that no evidence is brought on record to establish his earnings as claimed, this Court is inclined to treat him as unskilled labour, whose notional can be fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month, as per the principle laid down in the decisions reported in Laxmidevi and Others vs. Mohd. Tabbar and Another, 2008 ACJ 1488 and New India Insurance Company vs. Smt. Kalpana and Others, 2007 (2) Law Summary 33. 25. In Gopalappa vs. Kanduluru Sankara Reddy and Another, 2022 ACJ 1427 the High Court of Karnataka in a case relating to Disability observed as follows: “In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar, 2020 ACJ 2695 (SC), the claimant is entitled to an addition of 40 percent of the assessed income towards future prospects.” 26. By following the observations made in the above-referred decision, this Court assessed that the injured annual earnings, including prospects, would be at Rs. 50,400/- (Rs. 36,000/- + Rs. 14,400/-). 27. After considering the material on record and in the light of the observations made in the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined to consider the functional Disability at 20% and thereby computed the Disability at Rs. 1,71,360/- (Rs. 50,400/- x 17 x 20%). In addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, an amount of Rs. 1,71,360/- is to be awarded under the head of Disability. 28. Though the claimant sustained six grievous injuries and a simple injury, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 31,000/- towards pain and suffering. This Court views that an additional amount of Rs. 19,000/- to be awarded under the head of pain and suffering of injuries. 29. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of earnings. Considering the nature of treatment undergone by the claimant, this Court views that the claimant should have taken bed rest for five months. In view of the same, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is to be awarded towards loss of earnings. 30. In all, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation under various heads in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as detailed hereunder: S. No. Head of the claim Enhanced Compensation 1. Amount awarded under Disability Rs. 1,71,360/- 2. In view of the same, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is to be awarded towards loss of earnings. 30. In all, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation under various heads in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as detailed hereunder: S. No. Head of the claim Enhanced Compensation 1. Amount awarded under Disability Rs. 1,71,360/- 2. The additional amount under the head of pain and suffering Rs. 19,000/- 3. Loss of earnings Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 2,05,360/- 31. After considering the material on record, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs. 2,05,360/- in addition to the award passed by the Tribunal. In all, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,60,360/- (Rs. 55,000/- + Rs. 2,05,360/-). Accordingly, the point is answered. 32. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 55,000/- to Rs. 2,60,360/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents 2 and 3. Respondent No. 2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation within two months, after excluding the already amount deposited, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 33. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.