JUDGMENT : RAJNESH OSWAL, J. 1. This batch of four appeals and cross-appeals arise out of a common award dated 20.09.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) whereby claim petitions filed by four claimants for grant of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by them, in a road traffic accident on 17.08.2018 at Bawli, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (Matadoor) bearing Registration No. JK-02H-3429 by its driver, have been allowed. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company has impugned the awards in all the claim petitions on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the medical record of the claimants in its right perspective and the disability of a particular portion of the body has been considered as the disablement of whole body while determining the compensation. 3. On the contrary, respondent No. 1/claimant in each appeal (appellants in respective cross-appeals) have impugned the award on the ground that just compensation has not been awarded to the claimants, taking in to consideration the injuries suffered by each of the claimant/respondent No. 1. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Before this Court examines each appeal and cross-appeal separately, the perusal of the common award impugned by the contesting parties reveals that the learned tribunal has considered the disability of the particular part of the body in respect of whole body of the injured/claimant despite the fact that the Doctor who was examined to prove the disability certificate had categorically stated that the disability suffered by each of the complainant would be reduced when compared to the whole body. The learned Tribunal has not put any question to the Doctor so as to find out the permanent disability in respect of whole body and the corresponding functional disability. In this context, it would be profitable to take note of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : “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. In this context, it would be profitable to take note of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : “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 vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 ] 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. 17. 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. 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. 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.” 6. Further this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has not considered the prospects of enhancement of income in future, while determining the compensation payable to the claimants except in case of Mohd. Zafeer. Further this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has not considered the prospects of enhancement of income in future, while determining the compensation payable to the claimants except in case of Mohd. Zafeer. Now, this court would examine each appeal and cross-appeal in respect of peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Mac App No. 87/2021 and Cross Objection No. 8/2022 7. In this appeal, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,03,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 1-Safia Begum under the following heads: 1. Loss of future income Rs. 3,78,000/- 2. Damages on account of pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- 4. Diet expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 4,03,000/- 8. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition, who claimed to be a homemaker, besides cultivating land and grazing cattle. She claimed her monthly income as Rs. 10,000/-. As per the disability certificate, the respondent No. 1 suffered 35% disability in respect of the injuries of chest and left knee. The learned Tribunal has fixed her income as Rs. 6000/- per month and this Court does not find any illegality in the same. However, it is evident that future prospects of enhancement of income have not been taken into consideration by learned Tribunal as respondent No. 1 was 40 years of age and as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , her income was required to enhanced at the rate of 40%. Thus, her monthly income would be Rs. 8,400/-. A perusal of the statement of Dr. Irfan Malik reveals that the disability pertained to the particular portion of the body and not to the whole body and when compared with the whole body it will reduce proportionally. 9. The learned Tribunal has not rightly determined the functional disability of the respondent No. 1. This Court is of the considered opinion that the disability of 35% in respect of particular portions of the body is required to be reduced when compared with the whole body. Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to fix permanent functional disability of the respondent No. 1 to 25%. Thus, compensation on account of loss of future income comes to Rs. 2,100 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 3,78,000/-. The learned Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 3,78,000/- as loss of future income. Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to fix permanent functional disability of the respondent No. 1 to 25%. Thus, compensation on account of loss of future income comes to Rs. 2,100 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 3,78,000/-. The learned Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 3,78,000/- as loss of future income. After taking into consideration the future income and reduction of the disability as compared to whole body, this Court too has determined the same amount i.e. Rs. 3,78,000/- payable to the respondent No. 1. So far as compensation under the head pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life is concerned, the same is on the lesser side. In view of the injuries suffered by the respondent No. 1, an amount of Rs. 20,000/ each is awarded to the respondent No. 1 under the heads “Pain and Suffering” and “loss of amenities of life”. The compensation under other heads is maintained. Thus, the total compensation payable to the respondent No. 1 would be Rs. 4,23,000/. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The enhanced amount shall be deposited with in the period of one month from the date of order/judgment. 10. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of alongwith cross-appeal and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be released in favour of the respondent No. 1/claimant after her due identification along with interest as per the award. Mac App No. 88/2021 and Cross Objection No. 7/2022 11. In this appeal, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 1-Mohd. Zafer under the following heads: 1. Loss of future income Rs. 3,00,000/- 2. Damages on account of pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- 4. Diet expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 3,25,000/- 12. In this case, the claimant was five years of the age at the time of accident and was a student. The claimant/respondent No. 1 suffered injuries at the left forearm and diagnosed as fracture of Ulna forearm. As per the certificate of Dr. Irfan Malik, the respondent No. 1 suffered 25% disability of affected limb. The learned Tribunal after placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. The claimant/respondent No. 1 suffered injuries at the left forearm and diagnosed as fracture of Ulna forearm. As per the certificate of Dr. Irfan Malik, the respondent No. 1 suffered 25% disability of affected limb. The learned Tribunal after placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, AIR 2014 SC 736 has determined the loss of future income of respondent No. 1 as Rs. 3,00,000/- A perusal of the statement of Dr. Irfan Malik reveals that the disability pertains to the particular portion of the body and not to the whole body and when compared with the whole body, it will reduce proportionally. The disability suffered by respondent No. 1 is 25% of particular portion of the body and even if the disability is reduced by 10% as compared to whole body, then also as per the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra), an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is required to be awarded to the respondent No. 1 for loss of future income. So far as damages under the head pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life and diet expenses are concerned, this Court does not find any reason to show indulgence. 13. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company and cross-appeal filed by the claimant/respondent No. 1 are dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company alongwith interest shall be released in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 after due identification. Mac App No. 89/2021 and Cross Objection No. 6/2022 14. In this appeal, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,96,440/- (wrongly mentioned by the Tribunal as Rs. 2,94,440/-) in favour of the respondent No. 1-Badar Hussain under the following heads: 1. Loss of future income: Rs. 2,71,440/- 2. Damages on account of pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- 4. Diet expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 2,96,440/- 15. In this case, the respondent No. 1 was 49 years of age and he claimed to be a Teacher by profession and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. In absence of concrete proof of monthly income of respondent No. 1, the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the respondent No. 1 as Rs. 6,000/- per month and this Court does not find anything wrong with the same. 10,000/- per month. In absence of concrete proof of monthly income of respondent No. 1, the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the respondent No. 1 as Rs. 6,000/- per month and this Court does not find anything wrong with the same. It appears that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects of enhancement of income of the injured. As the respondent No. 1 was 49 years of age at the time of accident, so his monthly income was required to be enhanced by 25% as per the law laid by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Thus, after enhancement, his monthly income would be Rs. 7,500/- per month. As per the disability certificate, the respondent No. 1 suffered fracture of 10th Rib and disability of the chest amounted to 29%. A perusal of the statement of Dr. Irfan Malik would reveal that the disability pertains to the particular portion of the body only and not to the whole body and when compared with the whole body, it will reduce proportionally. Accordingly, the disability of respondent No. 1 is reduced to 20% as compared to whole body. Accordingly, loss of future income of respondent No. 1 would be Rs. 1,500 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 2,34,000/-. So far as compensation awarded to respondent No. 1 for loss of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life and diet expenses, this Court does not find any reason to show indulgence with the same. Accordingly, total compensation payable to the respondent No. 1 in this case shall be as under: 1. Loss of future income Rs. 2,34,000/- 2. Damages on account of pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- 4. Diet expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 2,59,000/- 16. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Appeal filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 is dismissed. The award amount as modified above be released in favour of the appellant and the balance amount be released in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company. The interest component shall remain the same. Mac App No. 90/2021 and Cross Objection No. 5/2022 17. In this appeal, the respondent No. 1-Zainab Khatoon has been awarded Rs. The award amount as modified above be released in favour of the appellant and the balance amount be released in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company. The interest component shall remain the same. Mac App No. 90/2021 and Cross Objection No. 5/2022 17. In this appeal, the respondent No. 1-Zainab Khatoon has been awarded Rs. 2,30,400/- as compensation under the head “loss of future income” but it appears that due to mistake, the learned tribunal has mentioned the amount as Rs. 3,78,000/-. The compensation payable under the other heads is as under: 1. Damages on account of pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- 2. Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- 3. Diet expenses Rs. 5,000/- 18. In this appeal, the respondent No. 1 was 35 years of age and was a homemaker. She also claimed to be involved in grazing cattle, grass cutting and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. In absence of concrete proof of monthly income of respondent No. 1, the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the respondent No. 1 as Rs. 6,000/- per month. This Court does not find anything wrong with the same. It appears that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects of enhancement of income of the injured as the respondent No. 1 was 35 years of age, so his monthly income was required to be enhanced by 40% as per the law laid by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Thus, after enhancement, his monthly income would be Rs. 8400/- per month. As per the disability certificate, the respondent No. 1 suffered 20% disability on account of fracture of left ankle and chest. A perusal of the statement of Dr. Irfan Malik would reveal that the disability pertains to the particular portion of the body only and not to the whole body and when compared with the whole body, it will reduce proportionally. This Court deems it appropriate to fix the disability of respondent No. 1 to 10% as compared to the whole body. Accordingly, loss of future income of respondent No. 1 would be 840 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 1,61,280/-. So far as compensation awarded to respondent No. 1 for loss of pain and sufferings and diet expenses, this Court does not find any reason to show indulgence with the same. Accordingly, loss of future income of respondent No. 1 would be 840 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 1,61,280/-. So far as compensation awarded to respondent No. 1 for loss of pain and sufferings and diet expenses, this Court does not find any reason to show indulgence with the same. The compensation under the head of “loss of amenities of life” is required to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000 as she has suffered injuries at two parts of the body. Accordingly, total compensation payable to the respondent No. 1 shall be as under: 1. Loss of future income Rs. 1,61,280/- 2. Damages on account of pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/- 4. Diet expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 1,96,280/- 19. In view of the above, the appeal filed by appellant/Insurance Company is allowed and cross-appeal filed by the claimant/respondent No. 1 is dismissed. A sum of Rs. 1,96,280/- shall be released in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 alongwith interest as per the award passed by the learned Tribunal, after proper identification. Remaining amount be released to the appellant/Insurance Company. The award is modified to the aforesaid extent. 20. No interest shall be payable on the compensation for loss of future income in all the appeals as directed by the Tribunal. 21. All the appeals and cross-appeals are disposed of as above. Record of the Tribunal be sent back.