JUDGMENT : Subhendu Samanta, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated December 14, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medipur, in M.A.C. case No. 162/322 of 2010/2009. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the present appellant being the claimant preferred an application before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for getting compensation from the Insurance Company on the ground that he sustained severe injury in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle duly insured under the policy of the insurance company. By such accident, he sustained severe injury and he became a permanent disabled. The claim was contested by the Insurance Company by filing written statement. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,85,800/- in favour of the claimants. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the present application has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in passing the award of compensation. The present appellant was the helper of the offending vehicle bearing no.WB 295984(Bus). Due to such accident, he was admitted to the hospitals including nursing homes and during such treatment he spend huge amount of money, which was not awarded by the learned Tribunal in this case. He further argued that the learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the facts that he was permanently disabled, which is 55% as obtained by the Board of Doctors by issuing a disability certificate. The learned Tribunal has erroneously fixed the disability to the extent of 30% only. He again argued that the claimant/appellant is entitled to get future prospect according to the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Pranay Shetty. 6. In support of his contention he cited decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in 2011 ACJ 1 , R.K. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control(India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1995 AIR SC 755. 7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed no error in awarding the compensation. Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in 2011 ACJ 1 , R.K. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control(India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1995 AIR SC 755. 7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed no error in awarding the compensation. Learned Tribunal has categorically observed that the disability certificate produced before him and he was of view that there are some shortened of leg and fracture in the ancle of the claimant, so, in that case, the disability cannot be more than 30%. The learned Tribunal has also observed the evidence of doctor; in the cross-examination of doctor he had specifically observed that the doctor’s evidence does not support the disability of the claimant to be 55%. He again argued that the claimant has already received the compensation amount and the appeal by the claimant is infructuous. 8. Heard the learned advocates and perused the observation of the learned Tribunal also perused the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by the learned advocate for the appellant in Raj Kumar (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that para 9 is quoted below : “9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there any permanent disability and if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that 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 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 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.” 9. 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.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Hattangadi(Surpa) has held that in case of injury the victim is entitled to get two types the damages first is the pecuniary damages. It is expences, which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculate in terms of the money; where as, non-pecuniary damages are those which are in capable of being arithmetic calculation. In order to appreciate two concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) Medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit. It also includes damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. 10. Considering the facts, it appears that the appellant was helper of a bus. The disability certificate reflects that it is not possible for the appellant to walk or move easily as he had otherwise be able prior to the accident. The disability certificate also stated that the claimant cannot be move without the help of clutch or wheel chair. 11. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar(supra) it appears to me the disability of the injured is not so fatal in considering percentage of entire body but it has been proved that his functional disability is not less than 55% as observe by the board of doctors. Actually, by such accident he lost his job, and maintaining lifelihood by other means. In that score, the observation of the learned Tribunal regarding the percentage of disability is erroneous. Actually, by such accident he lost his job, and maintaining lifelihood by other means. In that score, the observation of the learned Tribunal regarding the percentage of disability is erroneous. In this case, the percentage of disability has to be calculated to be 55%. The claimant/appellant is also entitled to get the future prospect which would be asses 40% of his actual income considering his age(Pranay Sethi). 12. The P.W. 3 has deposed before the learned Tribunal regarding the bills of medical expenses which is come under the head of pecuniary damages. In this case, according to the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi(supra) claimant is entitled to this medical expenses. 13. The claimant is also entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the non-pecuniary damages. 14. Considering the first all aspect, the award passed by the learned Tribunal need be modified. The total compensation is recusted below : 1. Monthly income Rs.3,000/- 2. Annual income (3000 X12) Rs.36,000/- 3. Add Future prospect 40% Rs.14,400/- Rs.50,400/- 4. Add 55% loss of income Rs.27,720/- 5. Multiplier 15 (27,720 X 15) Rs.4,15,800/- 6. Add pecuniary damages Rs.46,900/- Rs.4,62,700/- 7. Add non-pecuniary damages Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.5,62,700/- 8. Less awarded amount Rs.1,85,800/- Balance award Rs.3,76,900 15. After calculation, the total award comes to Rs.5,62,700/-. The claimant has already received an award of Rs.1,85,800/-. The balance award comes to Rs.3,76,900/- 16. The award shall carry 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 26.10.2009. 17. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance award together with interest as directed above through the officer of the Learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta within six weeks from this date. 18. on such deposit, the office of the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta shall disburse the same in favour of the appellant according to the prelevant rules. 19. The payment of compensation is subject to the ascertainment of payment of deficit court fees, if any. 20. The learned Tribunal shall act upon the production of the certified copy of this award to receive the deficit court fees if any. 21. The LCR be sent down immediately to the office of the learned Tribunal. 22. Accordingly, FMA 848 of 2012 is disposed of. 23. Connected applications, if any, are also disposed of. 24. 20. The learned Tribunal shall act upon the production of the certified copy of this award to receive the deficit court fees if any. 21. The LCR be sent down immediately to the office of the learned Tribunal. 22. Accordingly, FMA 848 of 2012 is disposed of. 23. Connected applications, if any, are also disposed of. 24. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.