JUDGMENT : Present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “Act”) assailing the order dated 31.10.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.26 of 2018 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Tanuku. Claimant is in appeal dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 4. The claim has been preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The claimant was pursuing ITI course and aged about 20 years. Claimant stated to have suffered injury on account of accident occurred on 27.11.2017 while the said claimant riding a motorcycle along with a pillion rider who is also claimant in MACMA No.25 of 2023, by lorry bearing No.AP 03 X 2973 because of which both of them fell down and had sustained injuries. Claimant was shifted to Apple hospital at Tanuku where he underwent treatment. 5. The incident was reported to Police and Crime No.128/2017 was registered for offence under Section 338 of IPC and after investigation, chargesheet came to be filed against the driver of the offending lorry. Because of the injury sustained to right leg, he has suffered permanent disability which hampers to undertake his regular activities. Therefore, claim for compensation was made. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending lorry, remained ex parte before the trial Court. The respondent No.3 insurer filed written statement denying the claim. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner Sahadev is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum as prayed for or not? 2. To what relief? 7. To support the claim, the claimant got examined himself as PW1 and Doctor who treated as PW2 and the Doctor who issued the Medical Disability Certificate as PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. For respondents, its Officer was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1. The tribunal has rendered finding that the claimant sustained injuries on account of accident that occurred on 27.11.2017 due to the negligence of the driver of the offending lorry. 8. For respondents, its Officer was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1. The tribunal has rendered finding that the claimant sustained injuries on account of accident that occurred on 27.11.2017 due to the negligence of the driver of the offending lorry. 8. The petitioner claimed Rs.4,00,000/- before the tribunal under the following heads: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1. Transport to Hospital and return Rs.5,000/- 2. Medical and other expenses Rs.20,000/- 3. Extra Nourishment Rs.5,000/- 4. Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- 5. Loss of amenities on account of permanent disability Rs.3,10,000/- 6. Future medical expenses Rs.20,000/ 9. The tribunal has denied the claim towards the loss of amenities to the claimant, though he claimed disability of 50%. Considering the evidence of the Doctor who treated the claimant, the tribunal rejected to grant any relief. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. 10. Heard Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. P. Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that, when there is a clear evidence on record by way of Ex.P.8, which is the disability certificate, coupled with the evidence of PW3 who issued the same, the tribunal ought not to have come to conclusion that the injured did not suffer any permanent disability and such a conclusion is clearly perverse. It is his submission that when Ex.P.8, the disability certificate, has been issued by the Medical Board and the same has been confirmed by the Doctor who issued the said certificate, the tribunal ought to have considered and assessed the functional disability rather than disbelieving the said evidence. 12. In spite of his submission, reliance has been placed in the cases of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another , (2011) 1 SCC 343 and Manoj Saw Vs. Ramneek Sabarwal & Another, 2025 LawSuit(Del) 2227. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents tried to support the impugned order by contending that the tribunal, on appreciation of evidence on record, has rightly come to conclusion that the claimant did not suffer any permanent disability and therefore, rejected the claim towards the loss of future earnings. Since the said finding is based on material and on appreciation of evidence, it cannot be said that the same suffers from any perversity. 14. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 15. Since the said finding is based on material and on appreciation of evidence, it cannot be said that the same suffers from any perversity. 14. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 15. The point that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the order passed by the Tribunal, in relation to determination of liability and compensation awarded, suffer from any perversity? 16. Since the claimant/injured has not preferred any appeal, the liability aspect is not in dispute. The occurrence of accident and the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, are also not in dispute in the present proceedings. The claimant suffered injuries in the said accident. The nature of injuries assessed as per Ex.P.3 certificate is that fracture to right leg which was grievous in nature and abrasion over right foot being minor in nature. The injuries sustained by the claimant have been certified by the medical board, inflicted 50% disability, to which extent Ex.P.8 disability certificate has been marked. To prove the contents of the said certificate, PW3, who issued the same, has been examined. In addition, the claimant also examined PW2, the Doctor who treated the injured. In his evidence, it was clearly stated that first injury to right leg was grievous in nature. 17. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the claimant has made claim for loss of future earnings. However, the tribunal, considering the evidence of PW2, in particular the statement made during cross-examination that the fracture injury would not really cause permanent disability but only had short-term effect, ultimately came to conclusion that the injuries suffered would not cause any permanent disability. The tribunal has not referred to the evidence of PW3 and also the contents of Ex.P.8, disability certificate, which assessed the disability as 50%. The finding of the tribunal, therefore, suffers from a severe infirmity, by not considering the aforesaid crucial evidence of PW3. Since the disability certificate has been issued by the medical board and also testified by the Doctor, who issued it as PW3, the same should be given credence and cannot be overlooked. The tribunal, therefore, completely misdirected itself in coming to conclusion that there is no permanent disability as such. In opinion of this Court, aforesaid finding clearly cannot be sustained on face of overwhelming evidence available on record. 18. The tribunal, therefore, completely misdirected itself in coming to conclusion that there is no permanent disability as such. In opinion of this Court, aforesaid finding clearly cannot be sustained on face of overwhelming evidence available on record. 18. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the tribunal was required to consider the aspect of determination of permanent disability by following the test laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar ’s case (mentioned supra) . On perusal of the impugned order, definitely the tribunal did not appear to have embarked on such exercise. Therefore, the tribunal is required to keep in mind the test laid down in the said judgment for the purpose of assessing the future loss of earnings due to permanent disability. 19. Since the tribunal has come to conclusion that there is no permanent disability, it did not dwell into the aspect of determining the income of injured and the loss of future earnings. Inasmuch as this Court has come to conclusion that definitely this is not a case of zero permanent disability, rather the tribunal overlooking the evidence of the disability certificate issued by the medical board and testified by PW3 has come to such conclusion, is inclined to remand the matter back to the tribunal for re-determination of the aspect of functional disability and resultantly the loss of future earning capacity as well. In this process, the tribunal is also directed to assess the age and the income of injured for the purpose of arriving at the loss of future earnings capacity. 20. Accordingly, the decree and judgment dated 31.10.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.26 of 2018 on the file of the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari is set aside and the present Appeal stands disposed of by remanding the matter back to the tribunal for determination of just and fair compensation in terms of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.