JUDGMENT : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Insurance-Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation in T(M.V.) Case No. 35/2012 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, by which compensation of Rs. 20,26,545/- has been awarded to the claimant (Respondent No. 1), who suffered permanent disablement in a motor vehicle accident. 2.The finding of facts recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the factum of accident is not under challenge, that the claimant on 20.10.2010 met with an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Maruti Suzuki Wagon-R bearing Registration No. JH-01L-9034, resulting in grievous injuries. 3.The question that has been raised in this appeal is whether a Government Servant who did not suffer any loss of future income consequent upon the accidental injury will be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income? 4. In order to appreciate the argument, it shall be desirable to set out the heads under which the compensation has been awarded: I.The claimant was serving as an ASI (Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police) and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 29,288/- and on account of 40% permanent disablement, loss of future income to the extent of Rs. 18,27,571/- has been assessed, II. Medical expenses - Rs. 1,94,506/-, III.Pain and suffering - Rs. 5000/-, IV.Special diet - Rs. 2000/-, V.Future medical - Rs. 2000/-, VI.Conveyance - Rs. 1000/-, 5.The claimant (P.W.-3) in para 12 has deposed that at the time of accident he was serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector and at the time of examination as a witness, he had been promoted as Sub-Inspector. In para 13 he has deposed that, he continued to receive his salary during the period of his absence on duty due to accident. Further, by way of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the claimant dated 04.05.2022, it has been stated that he has not received reimbursement regarding his medical expenditure from the Government. 6.It is submitted by Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, plea that the claimant had not suffered any loss of income as there was no break in his service as a result of accident has not been pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of the Insurance Company and is being raised for the first time in the appeal. 7.As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has assessed a meagre loss of income of Rs 5000/- for pain and suffering. Reliance is placed on 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385 (K.S. Murlidhar Vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Another) wherein Rs. Three Lakh has been awarded under the head of pain and suffering. Ratio laid down in (2023) 3 SCC 439 (Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr.) is also to the same effect. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it shall be desirable to set out the law for awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability. Law has been summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. , (2011) 1 SCC 343 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 the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the 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 to 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. 9. I find merit in the argument of the Insurance Company that as per the evidence of the claimant (R-1) himself, he had not suffered any pecuniary loss on account of accident, and the disablement did not come in way in promotion from Assistant Sub Inspector to Sub Inspector. Thus it is evident that permanent physical disability did not result in functional disability causing loss of future income. Thus it is evident that permanent physical disability did not result in functional disability causing loss of future income. In the absence of loss of future income, award of compensation under this head to the tune of Rs.18,27,571/- is not sustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. 10. The claimant is however also entitled to enhancement of compensation under the head of pain and suffering, and award of compensation for the medical expenditure with respect to hip replacement. 11.The claimant (R-1) suffered motor vehicle accident resulting in fracture acetabulum (R) side leading to partial Ankyloses (R) Knee partial ankyloses (R) hip C shortening of (R) lower limb. Percentage of disability was 40% permanent (Ext.3). As a result of accident, the claimant (R-1) had to undergo hip replacement after filing of the claim application and the expenditure incurred in the treatment has been adduced into evidence before this Court vide order dated 21.03.2025. The document of the treatment has been brought on record and marked as Ext. X/4 and X/5 for identification. As per these documents, the claimant (R-1) was under the treatment at SRM Institute for Medical Science, Vadapalani, Tamilnadu. Total medical expenditure came to Rs.3,61,141/- which the claimant will be entitled, as the expenditure incurred in the medical treatment had a causal connection with the injury caused in the said motor vehicle accident. 12. The claimant is therefore also entitled to a further compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, under the head of pain and suffering undergone by him as a result of accidental injury and resultant surgical and operational trauma. He is also entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,61,141/- for medical expenses incurred by him in hip replacement in addition to the medical expenses already awarded by the learned Tribunal. 13.Misc. Appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. 14.The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount including Rs.3,00,000/- (for pain and suffering) within one month of the order with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim application and medical expenditure of Rs. 3,61,141/- (for hip replacement) with interest @ 6% from the date of payment of the bill i.e., 21.11.2017. Pending I.A., If any, stands disposed of.