JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.K. Bhatra and Ms. L.A. Magar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and award dated 27.05.2019 passed in MAC Case No.05/2017 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jorhat, for enhancement of the award. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award dated 27.05.2019, the learned Member, MACT, Jorhat, has directed the respondent No.1 insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,01,589/- after deduction of interim relief, if any, to the appellant/claimant with interest @5% per annum. 3. The back grounds facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:- “On 20.04.2016, the appellant herein was returning from Guwahati towards Jorhat in a Toyota Innova car, bearing Registration No.AS-01AM-6064. Then, at around 2:10 a.m. on National Highway No.37 near Sabjury under Golaghat P.S., the vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and suddenly dash against a tree by the side of the road. As a result, the appellant herein sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was immediately taken to Bokakhat FRU, from where the doctors referred him to Jorhat. Accordingly, the appellant was taken to Jorhat and admitted in the All Well Hospital & Research Institute (P) Limited and attended by Dr. Bhaskar Bhagawati, who examined him and found multiple injuries with inter trochanteric fracture and he had undergone surgery there and plates and bolts were fitted to repair the inter trochanteric fracture and discharged on 27.04.2016. Thereafter, the appellant herein filed a claim petition before the learned Member, MACT, Jorhat against the respondents. Then on receipt of notice, the respondents entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and their liability in payment of compensation. Then, upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned Member has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, bearing Registration No.AS-01AM-6064 [Toyota Innova Gx Car]? 2. Then, upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned Member has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, bearing Registration No.AS-01AM-6064 [Toyota Innova Gx Car]? 2. Whether the claimant Sri Pawan Kumar Jalan sustained injuries due to the said accident which occurred on 20.04.2016 at 2:10 a.m. on National Highway No.37 way at Sabjury, under Bokakhat P.S., District-Golaghat, Assam? 3. Whether the offending vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Company Limited at the time of accident? 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? 5. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation? And, if so, to what extent and by whom it shall be paid? Thereafter, in the course of hearing, the claimant has exhibited as many as 9 documents and also examined himself as PW-1. The respondent herein cross-examined the claimant and also the respondent No.1/O.P. No.3 exhibited the insurance policy as Exhibit-A and thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the Issue Nos.1 to 4 in affirmative in favour of the claimant and in view of the decision in affirmative in respect of Issue Nos.1 to 4, the learned Member has found that the claimant is entitled to compensation and thereafter, assessed the compensation as under:- Loss of Income Rs. 30,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.1,06,589/- Special Diet Rs.10,000/- Head of Transportation Rs.5,000/- Pain & Sufferings Rs.50,000/- Total:- Rs.2,01,589/- [Rupees two lakhs one thousand five hundred & eighty nine] And thereafter, the learned Member has directed the respondent No.1/O.P. No.3 insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,01,589/- being the compensation to the appellant/claimant and further provided that the amount will carry interest @5% per annum with effect from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 15.03.2017.” 4. Being highly aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:- I. The learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment and award failed to consider the evidence in its proper perspective and thereby arrived at the erroneous finding. II. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was neither just nor reasonable. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted higher compensation by taking relevant facts and materials into consideration. III. II. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was neither just nor reasonable. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted higher compensation by taking relevant facts and materials into consideration. III. The learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment and award dated 27.05.2019, committed irregularity by taking notional income of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month in spite of there being sufficient evidence to the effect that the claimant's monthly income is of Rs.35,490/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety), as per his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 (Exhibit-3), wherein it is shown that his gross total income is of Rs.4,25,874/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Four) and the opposite parties also did not denied this evidence during cross-examination of claimant/injured. As such, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the claimant/injured as Rs.35,490/-(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety) per month instead of taking notional income of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month. IV. The learned Tribunal had wrongly awarded Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) [Rs.5000 x 6] as loss of income, but the loss of earning during the period of treatment ought to be Rs.2,12,940/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty) in place of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand). As such, awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) under the head, "Loss of Income" is liable to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court and the compensation amount under the head "Loss of Income" needs to be suitably enhanced by this Hon'ble Court. V. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is a businessman by profession and the Proprietor of M/S G.D. Tractors and also serving as a Table Tennis Coach and Computer Trainer at J.B. College, Jorhat and his yearly income from all the sources comes at Rs.4,25,874/-. As such, holding of notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month is totally erroneous. VI. The learned Tribunal also erred in not awarding any amount under the head “future medical expenses” to be caused in the operation for removing the plates, bolts etc. VII. As such, holding of notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month is totally erroneous. VI. The learned Tribunal also erred in not awarding any amount under the head “future medical expenses” to be caused in the operation for removing the plates, bolts etc. VII. The learned Tribunal had erroneously awarded a very meager amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively under the head of "nourishing food and special diet" and "transportation" though it is very much available in the evidence that the claimant/injured was under medical treatment for more than 6 months and during that period he took medical and physiotherapy treatment. VIII. The learned tribunal committed wrong by awarding a very meager amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of "pain and suffering" as a consequence of the injuries which need to adequately enhanced by this Hon'ble Court considering the pain, sufferings and trauma suffered by the claimant/injured. IX. The learned Tribunal awarded 5% interest upon the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., from 15.03.2017, till realization of the entire amount, which is very much inadequate and needs to be modified at the rate of 9% per annum. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant, has confined his arguments on the following points:- (i) Monthly Income of the Injured/Appellant:- It is contention of Mr. Dutta that while assessing the compensation, which the claimant is entitled to, the learned Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the claimant @Rs.5,000/- per month. Mr. Dutta submits that the appellant herein is a businessman by profession and proprietor of M/s G.D. Tractors and also he is a Table Tennis Coach and Computer Trainer at J.B. College, Jorhat and as per his income tax return, which is exhibited as Exhibit-3, his total yearly income was Rs.4,25,874/- and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 228 and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala & Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma & Anr., reported in (2015) 9 SCC 150 , Mr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 228 and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala & Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma & Anr., reported in (2015) 9 SCC 150 , Mr. Dutta submits that income tax return is a statutory document and reliance can be placed upon the same to determine the annual income of the injured/claimant and that the latest income tax return has to be taken into account for calculation instead of taking the average income of two assessment years and since the annual income of the appellant is Rs.4,25,874/-, as such, his monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs.35,490/- and as such, the learned Member has committed illegality in taking the notional income of the appellant at Rs.5,000/- per month. (ii) Rate of Interest:-Mr. Dutta submits that the learned Member has fixed the rate of interest @5% per annum. But the same ought to have been 9% per annum. (iii) Medical Expenses:- Mr. Dutta submits that while assessing the compensation in a routine injury case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.1,06,589/- being the medical expenses which ought to have been for a sum of Rs.2,49,598/- and the respondent No.1, the Insurance Company has not disputed the said amount. (iv) Future medical Expenses:- Mr. Dutta submits that the claimant has suffered 33% disability in view of Exhibit-8, but the learned Tribunal has failed to award any amount under the head future medical expenses. (v) Nourishing and Special Diet and Transportation :- It is also the contention of Mr. Dutta that the amount awarded under nourishing head and special diet is Rs.10,000/- and transportation charge was Rs.5,000/-. Though there was evidence that the appellant was undergoing treatment for more than 6 months. (vi) Pain And Suffering:- Mr. Dutta also submits that under the head of pain and sufferings, the learned Member has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the same is very meagre amount and therefore, Mr. Dutta contended to enhance the awarded amount under the aforementioned heads. 6. Per contra, Mr. Bhatra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 i.e. the Insurance Company, submits that he has no objection in the event of granting compensation to the appellant for loss of his income during the period of six months of his treatment. Dutta contended to enhance the awarded amount under the aforementioned heads. 6. Per contra, Mr. Bhatra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 i.e. the Insurance Company, submits that he has no objection in the event of granting compensation to the appellant for loss of his income during the period of six months of his treatment. And in respect of the rate of interest so awarded by the learned Tribunal, Mr. Bhatra submits that the same is justified and in respect of the quantum of compensation under the different heads, he has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. Having heard the submission of learned Advocate of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein and also gone through the impugned judgment and award and the decisions referred by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The law regarding entitlement of compensation by the injured in a routing injury case is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the claimant is entitled to compensation under the following heads in a routine injury case:- “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). 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.” 9. The appellant herein has exhibited the bills and vouchers and receipts for “medical expenses” before the learned Tribunal for a sum of Rs.2,49,598/-. But, it appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,06,589/- under the head „medical expenses?. The contention of Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the aforesaid bills, so exhibited by the appellant/claimant is not disputed by the respondent side and as such, the claimant will be entitled to the aforesaid amount. But, it appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,06,589/- under the head „medical expenses?. The contention of Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the aforesaid bills, so exhibited by the appellant/claimant is not disputed by the respondent side and as such, the claimant will be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The list of expenses are shown in the chart below:- SL No. Exhibit LIST OF RECEIPTS No. Amount 1 9 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd dated 20/04/2016 200.00 2 10 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt.Ltd. dated 20/04/2016 50.00 3 11 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd dated 20/04/2016 229.00 4 12 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20/04/2016 120.00 5 13 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20/04/2016 650.00 6 14 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20/04/2016 579.00 7 15 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20/04/2016 707.00 8 16 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20/04/2016 355.00 9 17 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20/04/2016 20.00 10 18 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20/04/2016 1550.00 11 19 A copy of Bill of Baruah X-Ray & Sonoscan Clinic dated 20/04/2016 1400.00 12 20 A copy of Bill of Greater Jorhat Lions Blood Bank dated 21/04/2016 800.00 13 21 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 21/04/2016 340.00 14 22 A copy of Bill of Jyoti Laboratory dated 21/04/2016 350.00 15 23 A copy of Bill of Patholab dated 21/04/2016 90.00 16 24 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 22/04/2016 246.00 17 25 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 23/04/2016 1449.00 18 26 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. dated 22/04/2016 475.00 19 27 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 23/04/2016 480.00 20 28 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 23/04/2016 736.00 21 29 A copy of Bill of Bhagya Medical Stores dated 24/04/2016 155.00 22 30 A copy of Bill of Panchalee Medical Stores dated 24/04/2016 854.00 23 31 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 25/04/2016 623.00 24 32 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd dated 25/04/2016 58.00 25 33 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 25/04/2016 794.00 26 34 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Dated 26/04/2016 800.00 27 35 A copy of Bill of P.P. Pharmaceuticals dated 27/04/2016 200.00 28 36 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. dated 27/04/2016 12.00 29 37 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. dated 27/04/2016 3039.00 30 38 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. dated 27/04/2016 26560.00 31 39 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. dated 27/04/2016 30200.00 32 40 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. dated 27/04/2016 2400.00 33 41 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. dated 27/04/2016 1540.00 34 42 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 27/04/2016 528.00 35 43 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 27/04/2016 1959.00 36 44 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 29/04/2016 1451.00 37 45 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 27/04/2016 875.00 38 46 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 06/05/2016 2305.00 39 47 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 18/05/2016 195.00 40 48 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 20/05//2016 693.00 41 49 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 24/05//2016 230.00 42 50 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 27/05//2016 465.00 43 51 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. dated 30/05/2016 3500.00 44 52 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 01/06//2016 910.00 45 53 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 06/06/2016 95.00 46 54 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 07/06/2016 1656.00 47 55 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. dated 15/06/2016 700.00 48 56 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 16/06/2016 415.00 49 57 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 20/06/2016 1556.00 50 58 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 24/06/2016 95.00 51 59 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 30/06/2016 622.00 52 60 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 05/07/2016 1028.00 53 61 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 11/07/2016 261.00 54 62 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 12/07/2016 319.00 55 63 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 18/07/2016 1029.00 56 64 A copy of Bill of R.M Medical dated 25/07/2016 799.00 57 65 A copy of Bill of All Well Institute & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. dated 25/07/2016 650.00 58 66 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 28/07/2016 523.00 59 67 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 29/07/2016 475.00 60 68 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 03/08/2016 871.00 61 69 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 11/08/2016 832.0 62 70 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 06/09/2016 1644.00 63 71 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 30/09/2016 1590.00 64 72 A copy of Bill of Jai Hanuman Medical dated 01/10/2016 453.00 65 Purchase of Walker 1800.00 66 Regular Physiotherapy for last 06 months 36,000.00 67 Expenses incurred for regular attendant at Home Rs. 15,000.00 per month 90,000.00 68 Expenses incurred for Doctor's and Compounder visit at home 5000.00 69 Conveyance and other Miscellaneous Expenses 10,000.00 Patient/Claimant is still under treatment Total Expenses incurred up to the date of filling this Petition Rs. 2,49,585. 00/- 10. And having carefully gone through the said vouchers and receipts I find that the appellant had submitted receipts and vouchers for a sum of Rs. 1,06,785/- only. The other claims are not supported by any vouchers or receipt. And as such he is entitled to the said amount only under the head of medical expenses. The learned Tribunal, thus, rightly assessed the amount on the basis of receipts and vouchers and did not taken into account the claims where no receipts and vouchers were submitted. This court is unable to record concurrence with the submission of Mr. Dutta that merely because the respondent had not disputed the amount the same may be awarded. The claim must be supported by receipt and vouchers. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,06,785/- being the compensation under the head No. (i). 10.1. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/ under the head of special diet and Rs.5,000/ under the head Transportation. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that said amount is inadequate and unjust. But, in the given facts and circumstances the amount, so awarded, seems to be not unjustified. However, having regards to the extent of injuries suffered by the appellant and the period of treatment, this court is inclined to enhance the compensation under the head ‘nourishing food and special diet’ to Rs.15,000/ and the ‘transportation charge’ to Rs.10,000/-. 11. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation under the head No. (ii) (a) and (b), I find from the evidence of the claimant that at the relevant point of time, the injured was 45 years old and the learned Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the claimant @Rs.5,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein is a businessman by profession and proprietor of M/s G.D. Tractors and also he is a Table Tennis Coach and Computer Trainer at J.B. College, Jorhat. As per his income tax return, Exhibit-3, his income was Rs.4,25,874/- per annum. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein is a businessman by profession and proprietor of M/s G.D. Tractors and also he is a Table Tennis Coach and Computer Trainer at J.B. College, Jorhat. As per his income tax return, Exhibit-3, his income was Rs.4,25,874/- per annum. That being so, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors.(supra) and in the case of Shashikala & Ors.(supra) reliance can be placed upon the same to determine the annual income of the injured/claimant and that the latest income tax return has to be taken into account for calculation. 11.1. But, the learned Tribunal had not considered and taken into account such Income Tax Verification Form on account of failing to adduce any convincing evidence regarding his income and occupation and though he had exhibited the Income Tax Verification Form as Exhibit-3, he had did not examined any employee of Income Tax Office to substantiate the claim. Even he had not submitted any certificate of the Circle Officer, who is competent to issue income certificate. And therefore, the learned Tribunal had proceed to assess the notional income of the appellant at Rs.5,000/- per month. 11.2. The reason assigned by the learned Tribunal appears to be sound and justified and no reason or logic, not to speak of a sound one, was shown to take a different view by this court. Mere exhibiting a document as Income Tax Return Verification Form, without there being any materials to support the same and without examination of any of the officials of of the Income Tax Office to substantiate the same this court is of the view that the learned Tribunal had rightly proceeded to fix the notional income of the appellant herein. However, the notional income so fixed by the learned Tribunal appears to be in lower side. And in given factual background this court is of the view that fixing his notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month would be justified and proper. Accordingly, his notional income is fixed at Rs.7,000/- per month. It also appears that the appellant had undergone treatment for a period of six months. And as such he is entitled to Rs.7,000/- x 6 = Rs.42,000/- for the period of six months Thus, to the considered opinion of this court the claimant is entitled to Rs.42,000/- under Head No.(ii) (a), 12. It also appears that the appellant had undergone treatment for a period of six months. And as such he is entitled to Rs.7,000/- x 6 = Rs.42,000/- for the period of six months Thus, to the considered opinion of this court the claimant is entitled to Rs.42,000/- under Head No.(ii) (a), 12. Now, coming to the Head No.(ii) (b), I find that the appellant had taken a stand that he had suffered disability in the said accident and the percentage of disability was 33% as per Disability Certificate-Exhibit- 8 and as such he is entitled to compensation under the said head. However, no sum is awarded under this head. 12.1. Though Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that as per the Disability Certificate, which is exhibited as Exhibit-8, the disability of the appellant was assessed at 33%, yet to a pointed query of this Court Mr. Dutta submitted that the disability of the appellant is not permanent in nature. And that being so, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal had erred in not awarding any compensation under the aforesaid head. 12.2. While dealing with the issue of loss of future earnings in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability:- 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 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. 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. 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. 7. 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%. 8. 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. 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. 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 (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567 ). 9. 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. 10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 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 percent, 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. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may. 11. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to `hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the `just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the `just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopaedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. 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. 12. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. 13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. 13. We may now summarize 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 percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as 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 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. 12.3. Admittedly, in the case in hand the claimant has not examined the attending doctor though he had exhibited the Disability Certificate as Exhibit-8. It is well settled in the case of Rajkumar (supra) that mere production of a Disability Certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross- examination with reference to the certificate. Therefore, this court is unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal had committed any illegality in not awarding any compensation under this head. 12.4. It is a fact that Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and its provisions has to be interpreted keeping in mind the said objective of the legislature, being sought to be achieved by such legislation. But, there must be some sort of evidence to suggest that because of the injuries sustained by the claimant he became permanently disable, and the same has some bearing upon his income. Exhibit-8, the Disability Certificate indicates that his condition was non progressive and likely to be improved. 12.5. But, there must be some sort of evidence to suggest that because of the injuries sustained by the claimant he became permanently disable, and the same has some bearing upon his income. Exhibit-8, the Disability Certificate indicates that his condition was non progressive and likely to be improved. 12.5. Thus, to the considered opinion of this court the claimant is not entitled to any relief under Head No.(ii) (b), since there is no materials to suggest that he will suffer loss of future income on account of permanent disability. 13. There is also no medical evidence to suggest that the claimant has to incur medical expenses in future for his treatment. Therefore, in absence of any documentary proof, this court is of the view that he will not entitle to any compensation under the Head No. (iii). 14. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation under the Head No. (iv), we find from the evidence of the injured/claimant that he was admitted in Hospital from 21.03.2015 till 27.04.2016 and he had undergone surgery for the Inter Trochanteric Fracture due to the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. He was 45 years old at the material time of accident. Having regard to above, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- will be the just and proper amount of compensation under this head. 15. There is no medical evidence to suggest that the injury sustained by the claimant, will have any impact upon his normal longevity of life, nor there any evidence to show that he will not be able to enjoy amenities of his life. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the claimant will not entitle to any compensation under the head Nos.(v) and (vi). However, we would like to add a sum of Rs.25,000/-as the cost of litigation in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Boloram Prasad Vs. Kunal Saha & others, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 384 . 16. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total amount of Rs.2,48,785/-(Rupees two lacs forty eight thousand seven hundred & eighty five) only, as compensation, and in our considered opinion, this amount would be the just, equitable, fair and reasonable amount of compensation here in this case. 17. Kunal Saha & others, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 384 . 16. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total amount of Rs.2,48,785/-(Rupees two lacs forty eight thousand seven hundred & eighty five) only, as compensation, and in our considered opinion, this amount would be the just, equitable, fair and reasonable amount of compensation here in this case. 17. The learned Tribunal has directed to pay interest @ 5%, from the date of filing the claim petition till payment of the amount, the same appears to be in lower side. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly submitted that the rate of interest is in lower side. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Upahar Tragedy Victims Association and Ors, (2011) 14 SCC 481 and also in Kalpanaraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation: (2014) Acci.C.R.693 (S.C.), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9%, till realization of the amount, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 18. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The respondent No.1 insurance company shall pay the amount within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order. The appellant shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and shall place the same before the respondent No.1 insurance company within a week from today. 19. Send down the record of the learned Tribunal within a copy of this judgment and order. 20. The parties have to bear their own cost.