JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/claimant. None appears for the respondent nos.2 and 3, despite service of notice. 2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as MV Act, 1988 in short) is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.03.2017 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur, in MAC Case No. 165/2012 3. The case, in nutshell, is that on 05.09.2011, the respondent no. 1/claimant, while he was returning from Sadharu Paneri Tea Factory with tea leaves as the handyman of the Bolero Pickup Van bearing Registration No. AS-12E-3520 seated in the cabin of the said vehicle and reached near Bulbul Tea Estate, it skidded off the road and fell down on the road side of NH-52. As a result of the said accident, the respondent No. 1/claimant sustained grievous injury on his right elbow joint. The right hand had to be amputated below the elbow joint thereby causing permanent disability. 4. The respondent no. 1/claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only as compensation for the injuries sustained by him, which was registered as MAC Case No. 165/2012 before the learned member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur. The appellant has contested the case by filing written statement however, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 (owner and driver of the offending Bolero Pickup Van) did not contest the claim. 5. Upon pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed as under: (i) As to whether the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (iii) To what other relief/reliefs, the claimant is entitled to in law and equity? 6. The respondent no. 1/claimant had adduced evidence on affidavit as PW-1. However, the appellant did not examine any witness. 7. The respondent no. (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? (iii) To what other relief/reliefs, the claimant is entitled to in law and equity? 6. The respondent no. 1/claimant had adduced evidence on affidavit as PW-1. However, the appellant did not examine any witness. 7. The respondent no. 1/claimant as PW-1 had deposed that while he was returning from Sadharu Paneri Tea factory, with bought tea leaves by the offending vehicle (who is handyman of the offending vehicle) bearing registration No. AS-12E-3520 sitting in the cabin of the vehicle and while the offending vehicle reached near Bulbul T.E., skidded off the road and fell down on the roadside of NH-52 and as a result the claimant sustained injury on the right elbow joint, who had to ampute his right hand causing permanent disability. PW-1, in support of his case exhibited accident information report as Ext.1, Discharge-Certificates as Ext.2 & 3, Money receipts Hospital bill as Ext.4 & 5, Money receipts amounting to Rs.1,050/- as Ext.6, X-ray Report as Ext-7 and disability certificate as Ext.8. 8. It reveals from Ext.1 i.e. the accident information report that O/C, Behali Police station, mentioned clearly that the accident took place on 05-09-2011 at 8:20 p.m. near BulBul T.E. and the vehicle involved in the accident was Bolero Pick Up bearing registration No. AS-12-E-3520. The name of the owner of the aforesaid vehicle is also mentioned as Sri Surya Bh. Chetry and the said vehicle was duly insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. O.P. No. 3 vide policy No. 321202/31/2011/3774 valid up to 15-03-12. The O.P. No. 3/appellant, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. contested the case by filing Written Statement but failed to examine any witness to prove the contrary. 9. In view of the above, it is seen that the accident which took place on 05-09-2011, resulting amputation at the elbow joint of the right side arm of the claimant and was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-12-E-3520. 10. The learned Tribunal has also recorded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation. 10. The learned Tribunal has also recorded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation. The claimant in his evidence stated that though he incurred Rs.40,000/- for his treatment but he has submitted cash-memo, hospital bills and money receipts only for Rs.26,050/, therefore, for calculation of compensation, the total amount of vouchers submitted comes to Rs.26,050/- only. Ext.2 & 3, the Discharge Certificates and other prescriptions shows that the claimant had sustained injuries following the said accident for which his right elbow joint was amputated. From Ext.2 it reveals that the claimant took treatment at Skylark Hospital & Research Centre, Tezpur, for about 6 days as indoor patient, where he was operated. The claimant has submitted Disability Certificate (Ext.8) issued by the Medical and Health Officer Biswanath Chariali Civil Hospital, Dist. Sonitpur, Assam, wherein it is mentioned that the injured Anil Kuruwa is suffering from 50% disability. In the claim petition, the claimant has mentioned his age to be 23 years which is also supported by the Discharge-Certificate. The daily income of a Handyman has been taken as Rs.120/- per day and accordingly, claimant earned Rs.3,600/- (Rs.120/- X 30) per month. 11. After consideration of the evidence, the learned Tribunal has awarded of Rs. 12,32,450/- (Twelve Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifty only) as compensation to be paid by the appellant to the respondent/claimant in different heads with interest @ 5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 12. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Respondent No. 1/claimant as a result of the accident sustained injury on the right elbow joint causing “permanent partial disability” and his right hand had to be amputated below the elbow joint. The respondent No. 1 (claimant) submitted a Disability Certificate (Ext.8) issued by the Medical & Health Officer, Biswanath Chariali Civil Hospital, Sonitpur, Assam wherein it is clearly mentioned that the injured had suffered 50% Disability. The respondent No. 1 (claimant) submitted a Disability Certificate (Ext.8) issued by the Medical & Health Officer, Biswanath Chariali Civil Hospital, Sonitpur, Assam wherein it is clearly mentioned that the injured had suffered 50% Disability. 12.1 From a perusal of Part-II of Schedule-I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 which deals with list of injuries deemed to result in “Permanent Partial Disablement” and also prescribes the corresponding percentage of loss of earning capacity, it is evident that in the instant case, the loss of earning capacity of the respondent No. 1/ claimant is only to the extent of 60%. 13. He submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter and erroneously assessed loss of future earnings on the basis that the loss of earning capacity of the respondent No. 1/ claimant in the present case is 100%. Such Irregularities/infirmities have vitiated the impugned judgment and award dated 29.3.2017 and as such calls for interference by this Hon'ble Court. 14. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant also submits the learned Tribunal while assessing compensation also awarded 50% as future prospects by taking into consideration the age of the injured/ claimant which is not permissible in law. Such irregularities/infirmities have vitiated the impugned judgment and award dated 29.3.2017 and accordingly the same is liable to be suitability interfered with by this Hon'ble Court. 15. Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/claimant, on the other hand, submits that there is no error in awarding the respondent no. 1/claimant an amount of compensation of Rs. 12,32,450/- (Twelve Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifty) only which is just and reasonable compensation to be paid by the appellant to the respondent no. 1/claimant with 5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, as the claimant had clearly established that the accident had occurred due to which he has sustained injuries in right elbow joint which led to amputation causing permanent disability. Therefore, she submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 16. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. Undoubtedly, the respondent No. 1/claimant had sustained injury on the right elbow joint, which has been amputed and caused permanent disability as a result of accident. Therefore, she submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 16. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. Undoubtedly, the respondent No. 1/claimant had sustained injury on the right elbow joint, which has been amputed and caused permanent disability as a result of accident. The Disability Certificate has been exhibited as Exhibit-8 issued by the competent authority, which clearly mentioned that the injured had suffered 50% disability. However, as per Part-II of Schedule-I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, which deals with the list of injuries deemed to result in permanent person disablement prescribed the correspondent percentage of loss of earning capacity is only to the extent of 60%. The learned Tribunal in my considered view has failed to appreciate that aspect of the provision and erroneously assessed the loss of future earning on the basis of loss of earning capacity of the claimant to be a 100%. 18. It is also seen that while assessing the compensation for future prospects and awarding compensation, the learned Tribunal has awarded a 50% as future prospects by taking into consideration the age of the claimant which would not be permissible under the law. 19. Having considered above, it would be appropriate to modify the assessment of compensation by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the assessment of the award is as under: Monthly income (Notional) Rs. 3,600/- (Plus) Future Prospect (40% of Rs. 3,600) Rs. 1,440/- Total income Rs. 5,040/- per month Annual Income Rs. 60,480/- Multiplier (Rs. 60,480 x 18) Rs. 10,88,640/- So, loss of earning capacity is (10,88,640 x 70% disability as per Schedule of W.C. Act) Rs. 7,62,048/- Medical expenses Rs. 26,050/- Incidental expenses Rs. 20,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Total award Rs. 8,28,098/- Interest 6.5% per annum 20. The appellant is directed to pay the respondent no. 1/claimant an amount of Rs. 8,28,098/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Ninety Eight) only with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. Since the appellant had deposited 50% of the awarded amount of Rs. 12,32,450/- (Twelve Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifty) only and also Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) only as a statutory deposit, the deposited amount be deducted from the total amount of Rs. Since the appellant had deposited 50% of the awarded amount of Rs. 12,32,450/- (Twelve Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifty) only and also Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) only as a statutory deposit, the deposited amount be deducted from the total amount of Rs. 8,28,098/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Ninety Eight) only with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum. The remaining amount be paid to the respondent no. 1/claimant. The respondent no. 1/claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant in the Registry of this Court, which shall be allowed by the Registry on proper identification. 21. With the above modification and direction, this MAC Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.