ORDER : 1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred by the claimant-appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as awarded vide judgment dated 12.04.2023 passed in MAC Case No.120/2021 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was partly allowed and the claimant was held entitled to a compensation of Rs.27,23,406/- with interest @ 9% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.11.2020, the claimant-appellant, was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ01-SL-2092 from Padukala towards Ajmer. At about 04:30 pm when he reached near Tehla Sarhad, he was hit from front side by offending vehicle i.e. Bolero bearing registration No.RJ05-UA-5675, being driven rashly and negligently on wrong side by its driver/owner respondent No.1, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. 3. The claimant-appellant preferred a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,39,34,960/-. 4. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, assessed the annual income of the claimant-appellant to be Rs.3,79,314/- and awarded a sum of Rs.27,23,406/- as compensation in favour of the claimant-appellant, the break-up of which is as under : Annual Income (less tax) Rs.3,79,314/- Future Prospects – 25% (3,79,314x25/100) Rs.94,828.50/- Rs.4,74,142.50/- Multiplier to be applied – 14 (4,74,143x14) Rs.66,38,002/- Loss of earnings – 40% (66,38,002x40/100) [A] Rs.26,55,201/- Lumpsum Compensation for physical & mental agony, transportation, hospital expenses etc. [B] Rs.50,000/- Medical expenses (qua medical bills Exh.61-68, 94-96 and 99) [C] Rs.18,205/- Total Compensation [A+B+C] Rs.27,23,406/- Learned Tribunal along with the aforementioned compensation also awarded interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. The claimant-appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as awarded vide judgment & award dated 12.04.2023. 6. 5. The claimant-appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as awarded vide judgment & award dated 12.04.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the aforesaid accident, the appellant sustained 60% temporary physical impairment in his right upper limb as per the disability certificate dated 27.06.2022 (Exh.17) and 70% disability as per the disability certificate dated 29.10.2022 (Exh.108), but the learned Tribunal assessed the said disability only to be 40% and awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.27,23,406/- only while determining the loss of future earnings. He further submitted that amount qua medical bills (Exh.23-53, 55-60, 69-93 and 100-106) has erroneously not been awarded by the tribunal whereas the same ought to have been considered while computing amount of compensation. He therefore, prayed for modification of the impugned judgment and for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the interest rate as awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 9% is on a higher side and deserves reduction. Counsel further submits that alleged medical bills were not supported by any prescription and hence, the same were rightly not considered while computing the amount of compensation. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The primary issue under consideration in the present matter is - Whether the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the loss of future earnings @ 40% despite the disability certificates dated 27.06.2022 and 29.10.2022 reflecting 60% and 70% disability respectively? 10. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Hon'ble Apex court has propounded guidelines and general principles relating to assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability and compensation as under : “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. ……. …... 10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of 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. 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. ……… …….. 13. 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. (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.” 11. A bare perusal of the above judgment makes it clear that disability certificate issued by the medical board cannot operate as gospel truth for assessment of loss of future earnings. Meaning thereby, the disability percentage in the certificate is not always congruent to loss of future earnings and the same may differ on the basis of factors such as age, nature of profession, etc. 12. On the issue of determination of loss of future earnings on the basis of nature of work, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of Sarnam Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., (2023) 8 SCC 193 observed as under : “9. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability of an injured affects his functional disability, is to be assessed has been considered by this Court, repeatedly. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar and Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 267 . In the aforesaid case the injured was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of income on account of disability. This Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the injured was 55 years of age and it may be difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability. In fact, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability. The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of earning capacity from 50% to 90%.” 13. In the present matter, the claimant appellant was engaged in the trade/business of selling furniture. The injuries sustained by him in the accident definitely would affect his future capacity to work. But as is clear on record, he was engaged in selling of the furniture and not manufacturing of the same. It cannot be presumed that the claimant would, because of the present injuries, never be able to sell furniture. The said function does not necessarily require the physical activity of his own. The same can even be managed with the help of the assistance of the employees. It cannot be presumed that the disability as incurred in the right limbs of the deceased would incapacitate him completely. But then, it is clear that his complete right part of the body including upper and the lower right limb have been incapacitated/affected and hence, he would not be in a position to run his business independently, on his own. Further, the claimant, in his statements, has nowhere stated that he is completely unable to run his business after the accident. The only evidence led by him is to the effect that it has become impossible for him to work smoothly as earlier and that because of the accident, he would have to suffer heavy economic losses. Further, he has admitted that the shop in which he was running his business was a self-owned property. 14. Keeping into view the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above mentioned judgments and the facts of the present case, in the overall analysis, this Court deems it proper to assess the loss of income to the injured claimant qua his permanent physical disability to be 50%. 14. Keeping into view the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above mentioned judgments and the facts of the present case, in the overall analysis, this Court deems it proper to assess the loss of income to the injured claimant qua his permanent physical disability to be 50%. The finding of the learned Tribunal assessing the same at the rate of 40% hence, deserves modification. 15. So far as the amount qua medical bills (Exh.61-68, 94-96 and 99) is concerned, the learned Tribunal declined to consider them on the ground that there was no supporting prescription. However, in the opinion of this Court, rejection of the said bills i.e. Exh.23-53, 55-60, 69-93 and 100-106 for want of separate prescription, cannot be considered to be reasonable as it cannot be feasible that all medical bills would be supported by a separate prescription, especially in such injury cases which require treatment over a long period of time. Therefore, it is held that the claimant-appellant is entitled to the amount of medical expenses qua the due bills amounting to Rs.1,39,771.80p. as well. 16. On basis of the above mentioned facts and analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to the claimant/appellant under different heads ought to be as under:- Annual Income (less tax) Rs.3,79,314/- Future Prospects – 25% (3,79,314x25/100) Rs.94,828.50/- Rs.4,74,142.50/- Multiplier to be applied – 14 (4,74,143x14) Rs.66,38,002/- Loss of earnings – 50% (66,38,002x50/100) [A] Rs.33,19,001/- Lumpsum Compensation for physical & mental agony, transportation, hospital expenses etc. [B] (as awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.50,000/- Medical expenses - (qua medical bills Exh.61-68, 94-96 and 99) [C] (as awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.18,205/- Medical expenses (qua medical bills Exh.23-53, 55-60, 69-93 and 100-106 [D] Rs.1,39,772/- Total Compensation [A+B+C+D] Rs.35,26,978/- 17. In view of the above analysis, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment & award dated 12.04.2023 is modified as above and the claimant-appellant is held entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs.35,26,978/- instead of Rs.27,23,406/-, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 18. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.35,26,978/- (after deducting/ adjusting the amount already deposited) with interest as above awarded, with the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the present order. 18. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.35,26,978/- (after deducting/ adjusting the amount already deposited) with interest as above awarded, with the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the present order. The amount when deposited, be disbursed to the claimant appellant in terms of the Award.