JUDGMENT : T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2012 in MVOP No. 116 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the 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 15.09.2011. 4. The claimant's case is that on 15.09.2011 at about 5.15 AM, he was travelling in the bus bearing No. AP-28-Z-1679 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending bus’) belonging to the respondent as a passenger, when the offending bus reached near Nandigama crossroad, its driver drove the bus at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the driver lost control of the bus and dashed against the stationed auto from behind. As a result, the petitioner and others sustained injuries. On reporting the accident, Sattenapalli Rural P.S. registered the case against the offending bus driver in Cr. No. 99/2011. 5. The respondent filed a written statement denying the material allegations of the petition, inter-alia contending that the offending bus driver had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The claim of the claimant is excessive. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined, marked no documents. 7. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs. 1,62,400/- under various heads together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the respondent, who is the owner of the offending bus. The respondent engaged the driver, and the respondent being master, is vicariously liable to pay the compensation. 8. Heard both the learned counsels. Perused the record. 9. 1,62,400/- under various heads together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the respondent, who is the owner of the offending bus. The respondent engaged the driver, and the respondent being master, is vicariously liable to pay the compensation. 8. Heard both the learned counsels. Perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal failed to award proper compensation amount; the Tribunal erred in taking the Disability at 10%; the Tribunal erred in granting compensation towards medical expenses based on the medical bills submitted by the claimant; the Tribunal erred in not granting compensation towards loss of amenities of life. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations. 11. Now the point for determination is: Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires enhancement? 12. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver is not disputed by the respondent in O.P. by filing a cross objection or appeal. The said finding attained finality. The finding of the Tribunal concerning injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident is also not disputed by the respondent in O.P. by filing a cross objection or appeal. The said finding also attained finality. POINT: 13. Based on the claimant's evidence, the Tribunal fixed his age at 42. The multiplier is applied to the age group of 41-45 years as per guidelines of Apex Court in Sarla Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, 2009 ACJ 1298 is fourteen. The said finding of the Tribunal is not disputed by the respondent in O.P. 14. The claimant's case is that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month doing limestone business. Taking into consideration the fact that no evidence is brought on record to substantiate the same, the Tribunal treated 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 and Smt. Kalpana and Others, 2007 (2) Law Summary 33. 15. 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 and Smt. Kalpana and Others, 2007 (2) Law Summary 33. 15. It is the evidence of the claimant as PW-1 that he sustained multiple fractures to his left hip joint, an operation was conducted, and screws were fixed. Later he underwent treatment as an out-patient in Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad. Due to injuries, he cannot walk without the assistance of others. There is a restricted movement to his left hip joint, and he was limping due to injuries. He suffered pain and suffering due to injuries. He sustained a permanent partial Disability, and he became a disabled person. 16. To prove the injuries sustained by the claimant, he was examined by PW-2 Dr. Y. Seetha Ramanjaneyulu, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, Sravani Hospital, Guntur. His evidence shows that the claimant was admitted on 22.09.2011 for treatment of fracture acetabulum left side and posterior dislocation of the left hip joint. He conducted an operation on 24.09.2011 and was discharged from the hospital on 02.10.2011. On 17.12.2012, a check X-ray was taken, which showed that the fracture healed well, having mild partial foot drop problem with paresthesias of the left foot because of difficulty in foot drop of PW-1 and feeling difficulty walking long distances and going stairs. The petitioner has 20% permanent partial physical disability. 17. Admittedly, the disability certificate is not issued by the PW-2. According to PW-2’s opinion, the claimant requires two years to become normal, and there is the possibility of a reduction of Disability to 10% if the claimant undergoes further treatment. 18. 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 period of treatment 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 period of treatment 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 any 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, the loss of earning capacity arising from a permanent disability, will differ from the percentage of permanent Disability. 9. Therefore, the Tribunal must first decide whether there is any permanent disability, if so, the extent of such permanent Disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide 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 person's whole body 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 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 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. 19. The Tribunal also appreciates the evidence on record by keeping principles in the above decision. Based on the evidence of PW-2, the Tribunal observed that there is a possibility of reducing 10% of Disability if the claimant undergoes future treatment. So after undergoing treatment, the percentage of Disability after exhausting all remedies is only 10%. By making a such observation, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for future treatment. 20. Based on the evidence of PW-2, the Tribunal observed that there is a possibility of reducing 10% of Disability if the claimant undergoes future treatment. So after undergoing treatment, the percentage of Disability after exhausting all remedies is only 10%. By making a such observation, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for future treatment. 20. 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 per cent of the assessed income towards future prospects.” 21. By following the observations made in the above-referred decision, this Court assessed the annual earnings, including prospects, of the injured would be at Rs. 45,000/- (Rs. 36,000/- + Rs. 9,000/-) and thereby computed the Disability at Rs. 63,000/- (45,000/- x 14 x 10%). In addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, an amount of Rs. 12,600/- is to be awarded. After considering the nature of the injuries and further treatment to be provided to the petitioner, this Court finds an additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- to be awarded towards further treatment. 22. The Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering of grievous injury and Rs. 1,000/- for simple injury. 23. After considering the nature of injuries and Disability sustained by the petitioner due to said grievous injury, this Court views an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to be awarded towards pain and suffering of injuries. Thus, an additional amount of Rs. 19,000/- was awarded under this head. 24. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges. Considering the nature of injuries, Disability sustained by the claimant and his treatment, this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges. 25. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards extra nourishment. After considering the material on record, this Court inclined to award an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards extra nourishment. 26. 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. The additional amount awarded under the Disability Rs. 12,600/- 2. 10,000/- towards extra nourishment. 26. 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. The additional amount awarded under the Disability Rs. 12,600/- 2. Further treatment Rs. 15,000/- 3. The additional amount under the head of pain and suffering Rs. 19,000/- 4. Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- 5. Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 66,600/- 27. After considering the material on record, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs. 66,600/- in addition to the award passed by the Tribunal. In all, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,29,000/- (Rs. 1,62,400/- + Rs. 66,600/-). Accordingly, the point is answered. 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,62,400/- to Rs. 2,29,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty-Nine Thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. Respondent 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. 29. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.