JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award dated 16/02/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (CG). By the impugned award, against claim of Rs.18,70,000/-, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,43,539/- in favour of the appellant/claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 19/10/2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration no.CG.18 D/0630 driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2/insurance company. 2. As per pleadings of the claim application, the appellant/claimant along with his colleague Shiv Kumar and others had gone to Raipur to participate in State level social election. After election, he was returning back from Raipur to village – Kasra sitting in the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1/driver was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed from behind the Trailor which was standing in broken down condition on road side in front of Triveni Dental College, Bilaspur. Due to collision the persons sitting in the Bolero sustained injuries. The appellant/claimant also sustained severe injuries and his neck bone got fractured. Upon report being lodged, Police Station – Chakarbhata registered crime No.317/2014 under Section 338, 304(A) of the IPC and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Magistrate, Bilha. Further pleadings reflect that the appellant/claimant spent huge amount on his treatment in different hospitals, therefore, abovestated compensation was claimed. 3. Respondents No.3 and 4 are the driver and owner of Trailor No.CG 10 C/3013 and respondent no.5 is the insurance company with which the Trailor was insured. 4. The claim application was resisted by respondent No.1/driver and owner on various grounds and it was pleaded that suspension rod of Bolero suddenly broke down due to which, the offending vehicle became uncontrolled and it dashed the Trailor standing on the road side. Respondent No.2 also denied averments of the claim application and stated that it is not liable to pay compensation as the offending vehicle was not insured with it and the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. It was pleaded that ten people were sitting in the offending vehicle and it was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was pleaded that ten people were sitting in the offending vehicle and it was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also pleaded that it is a case of contributory negligence. Respondents 3 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte. Respondent no.5 in its written statement pleaded that the incident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle (Bolero). Trailor no.CG 10 C/3013 was parked on the road side in a broke down condition with indicators and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Trailor. 5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant. 6. Issue no.1 was framed with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver or there was involvement of Trailor No.CG 10 C/ 3013 in the accident. This issue was decided against respondent No.1. Other issues were decided in favour of the claimant and abovestated compensation was awarded. Respondent No.2/insurance company was held liable to pay compensation with 6% interest from the date of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that as a result of the accident, the appellant has become permanently disabled. Permanent disability certificate (Ex.P/1) has been duly proved by Dr. Rajendra Banshariya (AW2). He further submits that the appellant/claimant had appeared before the Medical Board, Baikunthpur and the doctor examined him and found that his cervical spine was broken and there is stiffness in his neck and he is unable to move it. Therefore, the appellant has suffered 100% permanent disablement even though disability certificate (Ex.P/1) was issued with regard to only 40% permanent disablement. He further submits that compensation on account of loss of earning capacity may be adequately awarded including enhancement of compensation on other admissible heads. He further submits that compensation on account of loss of earning capacity may be adequately awarded including enhancement of compensation on other admissible heads. To buttress his submission, he places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 , Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Anr., AIR 2018 SC (Supp) 1246 Mohd. To buttress his submission, he places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 , Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Anr., AIR 2018 SC (Supp) 1246 Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701 and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. (2023) 3 SCC 439 . 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respective respondents support the award and submit that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the percentage of disability and adequate compensation has been awarded on all admissible heads and it is submitted that compensation is just, reasonable and does not require any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and perused the records. 10. The appellant/claimant is said to have engaged in agriculture and other business. He pleaded that his monthly income is Rs.20,000/-. 11. The appellant/claimant (AW1) in his evidence before the Court deposed that he suffered fracture of his neck bone and sustained severe injuries on other parts of the body. He further deposed that after the incident, he was admitted for 2 days for treatment in CIMS hospital. Then he was taken to MMI Narayana Hospital, Raipur and there he was admitted from 21/10/2014 till 17/11/2014. He has undergone surgery of his neck and a plate was also fixed on his neck as a result of which, there is stiffness in his neck and he cannot move it left or right. The doctor has advised him not to drive motor cycle etc. He deposed that he cannot sleep straight on the bed which is causing great inconvenience to him. He further stated that he spent Rs.3 lakhs on his treatment and as per advice of his doctor, he has to further undergo surgery of his neck which would cost Rs.2 lakhs. He stated that he had agricultural land in village – Kasra and prior to accident, he was engaged in agriculture work and other business and after the incident, he is not able to do it. He has become permanently disabled and the District Medical Board Baikunthpur, District–Koriya has issued disability certificate (Ex.P/1). He has further stated that he has filed photo copy of income tax statement. 12. Dr. He has become permanently disabled and the District Medical Board Baikunthpur, District–Koriya has issued disability certificate (Ex.P/1). He has further stated that he has filed photo copy of income tax statement. 12. Dr. R.Banshariya (AW2) was examined and stated that cervical spine was operated and there is stiffness in his neck and the appellant/claimant was unable to move his neck and gave 40% permanent disability certificate with regard to his neck which is Ex.P/1. No other witness was examined. 13. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation in the following manner – Medical expenses - Rs.2,63,539/- Pain and suffering - Rs.50,000/- Injuries - Rs.30,000/- Total - Rs.3,43,539/- 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) laid down the law with regard to assessment of functional disability in the cases of permanent disability and held as under - “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 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.” xxx xxx xxx “27. In the case of an injured claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to claimant, (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). In the case of an injured claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to claimant, (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). Therefore there is no need to deduct one-third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses.” 15. In the case of Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and anr., (2023) 3 SCC 439 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under - “113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Dev Yadav v. Naresh Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 70 : 2020 SCC Online SC 752 that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. 16. In the case of Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351, it was observed as below - 14. The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration, thus, is to assess as to whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. In this sense, the MACT approached the issue in right direction by taking into consideration the aforesaid test. However, we feel that the conclusion of the MACT, on the application of the aforesaid test, is erroneous. In this sense, the MACT approached the issue in right direction by taking into consideration the aforesaid test. However, we feel that the conclusion of the MACT, on the application of the aforesaid test, is erroneous. A very myopic view is taken by the MACT in taking the view that 70% permanent disability suffered by the appellant would not impact the earning capacity of the appellant. The MACT thought that since the appellant is a Chartered Accountant, he is supposed to do sitting work and, therefore, his working capacity is not impaired. Such a conclusion was justified if the appellant was in the employment where job requirement could be to do sitting/table work and receive monthly salary for the said work. An important feature and aspect which is ignored by the MACT is that the appellant is a professional Chartered Accountant. To do this work efficiently and in order to augment his income, a Chartered Accountant is supposed to move around as well. If a Chartered Accountant is doing taxation work, he has to appear before the assessing authorities and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act, as a Chartered Accountant is allowed to practice up to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Many times Chartered Accountants are supposed to visit their clients as well. In case a Chartered Accountant is primarily doing audit work, he is not only required to visit his clients but various authorities as well. There are many statutory functions under various statutes which the Chartered Accountants perform. Free movement is involved for performance of such functions. A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily abled. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age. Though the High Court recognised this, it did not go forward to apply the principle of multiplier. We are of the opinion that in a case like this and having regard to the injuries suffered by the appellant, there is a definite loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of compensation with the adoption of multiplier method, as held by this Court in Yadava Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 341 : “9. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. 10. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of lifetime’s earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases – and that is now recognised mode as to the proper measure of compensation – is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” 17. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future earning on account of permanent disablement. In the light of above authoritative pronouncements, I have examined the facts of this case. The appellant/claimant has pleaded and deposed before the Tribunal that prior to accident, he was engaged in agriculture work and other business. It has not been specified as to what was the business, the appellant/claimant was engaged with. Nothing is available on record to suggest that he had any agricultural land. Except oral statement, no cogent or prudent evidence is available on record to substantiate the profession and income of the appellant/claimant. 18. In the claim application, the appellant/claimant stated himself to be 44 years of age. In the medical papers which has been marked and exhibited, the age of the appellant is shown to be 57 years. The medical papers of Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) also indicates that the appellant/claimant was 57 years of age. In the disability certificate (Ex.P/1), age of the appellant/claimant is shown to be 48 years. The accident is said to have occurred on 19/10/2014 and the medical certificate was issued on 05/08/2015. The medical papers of Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) also indicates that the appellant/claimant was 57 years of age. In the disability certificate (Ex.P/1), age of the appellant/claimant is shown to be 48 years. The accident is said to have occurred on 19/10/2014 and the medical certificate was issued on 05/08/2015. In the light of above, this Court considers that the appellant/claimant was aged between 46 to 50 years. As per Ex.P/1, the appellant has suffered 40% permanent disability but from the evidence discussed as above, it is apparent that the appellant has sustained severe injuries on his neck and plate was also implanted and as per evidence of the doctor, he is not able to move his neck. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade this Court with the submission that 100% loss of earning capacity should be considered by this Court but this Court is unable to accede to the submission but at the same time, it cannot be ignored that due to permanent disablement suffered by the appellant/claimant, his working capacity and efficiency must have been reduced considerably. Therefore, this Court considers loss of earning capacity of the appellant/claimant as 50%. Learned counsel for the appellant claimed that award of Rs.2 lakhs would also be necessary for future treatment but except oral submission, there is nothing on record to suggest the same. However, this Court would consider to grant some compensation under this head during the course of assessment of compensation. As no prudent and cogent evidence is available on record with regard to profession and income, considering the date of accident, evidence and minimum wages, this Court assess the monthly income of the appellant/claimant to Rs.5,500/- and proceed to compute the compensation in the following manner – 1 Monthly income Rs.5500/- 2 Future Prospects 25% (5500+1375) Rs.6875/- 3 Yearly loss of income (6875 x 12) Rs.82500/- 4 Loss of earning capacity (82500 x 50%) Rs.41250/- 5 Applying Multiplier of 13 (41250 x 13) Rs.536250/- (Loss of future earning) 6. Pain and suffering + Rs.50000/- 7. Medical expenses + Rs.263539/- 8. Loss of amenity & enjoyment of life + Rs.50000/- 9. Nutritional diet + Rs.10000/- 10. Transportation + Rs.10000/- 11. Attendant + Rs.10000/- 12. Future Treatment + Rs.25000/- 13. Injuries + Rs.30000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.9,84,789/- 20. Pain and suffering + Rs.50000/- 7. Medical expenses + Rs.263539/- 8. Loss of amenity & enjoyment of life + Rs.50000/- 9. Nutritional diet + Rs.10000/- 10. Transportation + Rs.10000/- 11. Attendant + Rs.10000/- 12. Future Treatment + Rs.25000/- 13. Injuries + Rs.30000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.9,84,789/- 20. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,43,539/- which is deducted from the total compensation now assessed and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.6,41,250/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of appeal to be deposited by the respondent No.2/insurance company within a period of 60 days. After the amount of compensation is deposited by respondent No.2/insurance company, 90% of the amount be invested in the name of appellant/claimant for three years as fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank. Remaining 10% be paid to the appellant through Bank transaction/account payee cheque. 21. The appeal thus partly allowed.