JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and award dated 22.09.2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa (held by IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa in FAC) 02. The appellant is the 2 nd respondent. The 1 st respondent is the claimant. The 2 nd respondent is the 1 st respondent before the Tribunal and owner-cum-driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.AP-04-Y-7417. 03. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: The claimant was aged about 32 years and a panchayat secretary at Rachagudi Village, Vontimitta Mandal. On 01.07.2015, while he was going on a motor cycle of Subramanyam as a pillion rider, the driver of Tata Ace vehicle coming from Kadapa side in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle resulting injuries to the claimant. A case in crime No.62 of 2015 under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. was registered in the Sidhout Police Station. The claimant was shifted to RIMS hospital, Kadapa and from there to Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty hospital as he suffered crush injury to the right knee, crush injury of right forearm, laceration at the right eyebrow and multiple abrasions over the right upper limb and nasal bleeding. The X-ray showed type-III B compound fracture of both bones of right forearm and fracture of patella with lateral condyles right femur . A surgery was conducted to his right forearm and right thigh and screws, plates and rods were inserted. He was discharged on 11.08.2015 from the Super Specialty Hospital. The petitioner incurred Rs.5,00,000/- for his treatment, transportation and attendant charges. Due to the injuries, the claimant could not move his right arm and cannot lift weights. Due to the injury to right thigh, he cannot walk freely and sit properly. He needs support of two attendants. As a panchayat secretary, his salary was Rs.21,000/- per month. He lost his increments, promotions and salary for three months. 04. The 1 st respondent filed written statement admitting the averments in the petition, but contending that the claimant was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident and fell down due to which he sustained injuries and moreover he did not have driving license. 04. The 1 st respondent filed written statement admitting the averments in the petition, but contending that the claimant was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident and fell down due to which he sustained injuries and moreover he did not have driving license. He further claimed that the Tata Ace vehicle was insured by the 2 nd respondent who shall be liable to pay compensation, if any. 05. The 2 nd respondent did not filed written statement in spite of entering appearance. 06. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself as PW1 and doctor J.Nagesh who treated him was examined as PW2. On his behalf, Ex.A1 to A8 were marked. An officer of the 2 nd respondent was examined as RW1 and copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. The 2 nd respondent filed a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in I.A.No.262 of 2021 and the same was allowed. 07. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the claimant was a pillion rider of the motor cycle and was not riding it as contended by the respondents and that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent. 08. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and the same amount was awarded as compensation under the following heads, though the Tribunal arrived at total amount of compensation payable to the claimant is Rs.11,64,534/- by restricting the compensation to the amount claimed. The Tribunal awarded the following amounts: Towards loss of earning Rs.11,64,534/- Towards pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs.3,347/- Towards transportation charges Rs.10,000/- Towards attendant charges Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.11,97,881/- Restricted Claim Rs.7,00,000/- 09. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal was preferred by the insurance company mainly on the ground of excess amount of compensation being granted under the head loss of earning due to 35% permanent disability since it has not resulted in loss of earning capacity and also that the accident occurred due to negligent riding of the motor cycle by the claimant and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the contributory negligence of the claimant. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the net salary, but not the gross salary of the claimant. 10. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the net salary, but not the gross salary of the claimant. 10. Sri T.Raviteja, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellant argued on the same lines of the grounds of appeal. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent contended that the claimant is entitled to more amount of compensation under different heads than what was granted and therefore, the award does not require interference. 11. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferance, but in view of the established several grievous injuries due to multiple fractures, besides other injuries and long term treatment taken and the surgeries undergone, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. 12. Since the claimant was treated in the government hospitals where normally treatment would be provided free of cost and whereas the claimant established medical expenses of Rs.3,347/- only through Ex.A6, the amount of compensation so granted is sufficient. 13. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- granted towards attendant charges is on low side as the claimant underwent surgeries and was in the hospitals for long period during the treatment and thereafter, he needed assistance even to walk due to the fracture injury to his leg, he is entitled to a reasonable amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges. 14. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses, but as the petitioner was treated as inpatient for long time, it is necessary to meet huge expenses for transportation to attend on him. Therefore, an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be granted under this head. 15. Though the Tribunal found that the petitioner was working as a panchayat secretary and earning Rs.16,310/- per month as gross salary as per Ex.A7 as against his contention of Rs.21,000/- per month and thereby held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.48,930/- towards salary for three months during which he was on extraordinary leave sanctioned under Ex.A8 because Rule 28(c) of A.P. Leave Rules, 1933 does not permit salary during period of extraordinary leave, but the Tribunal has not included the said amount in the total amount of compensation which the claimant is entitled to. The appellant contended that it is the net salary, but not the gross salary which shall be taken into consideration. The appellant contended that it is the net salary, but not the gross salary which shall be taken into consideration. The net pay for the month of June, 2015 was Rs.13,967/- and the gross pay is Rs.16,310/-. The deductions included Rs.1,338/- of CPS/ZPPF, Rs.750/- of APGLI, Rs.15/- of GIS, Rs.90/- of EHA and Rs.150/- of professional tax (total of Rs.2,343/-). As the claimant could not receive any amount of salary during the period of three months of extraordinary leave, be it gross or net, makes no difference. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.48,930/- as decided by the Tribunal towards loss of past income. 16. The major part of compensation awarded by the Tribunal included loss of earning due to permanent disability. At this juncture, it is apt to refer the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , (2011) 1 SCC 343 wherein it is held as follows: “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.” 17. In view of the above legal proposition, the Tribunal has to assess whether the injuries suffered by the claimant resulted in disability of permanent nature and if they resulted in permanent disability, whether such disability led to loss of future earning capacity and the earnings. In view of the above legal proposition, the Tribunal has to assess whether the injuries suffered by the claimant resulted in disability of permanent nature and if they resulted in permanent disability, whether such disability led to loss of future earning capacity and the earnings. As per the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal came to the opinion that the claimant suffered 35% of permanent disability, but it failed to decide whether such physical disability resulted in functional disability leading to loss of future earning capacity and earnings. Since all physical disabilities do not result in loss of earning capacity, in each case, the Tribunal has to examine the nature of the disability and the occupation of the claimant to determine the loss of future earning capacity. As the claimant was a panchayat secretary and it is not in evidence that the claimant has to move from place to place while discharging his duty or that such of his physical disability hampered him from discharging his official duties, the percentage of disability even if it is permanent, has no impact on the earnings of the claimant. Though he pleaded that he lost his earnings and promotion, there is no such evidence. In the absence of such evidence, there is no ground to assume that the physical disability of the claimant resulted in future loss of earning capacity in any manner, viz., quantum of earnings, promotion etc. As such, the multiplier method cannot be adopted to arrive at the quantum of compensation payable towards loss of future earnings due to permanent disability. Thus the Tribunal committed a serious error in arriving at compensation of Rs.11,64,534/- towards of loss of (future) earning. 18. However, compensation can be awarded under the head loss of amenities of life, disfigurement etc., which resulted due to permanent disability. Under these heads, a conventional lump sum amount can be granted taken need to consideration various factors such as age, the nature of disfigurement, the part of the body, the degree of discomfort, marital opportunities in case of young unmarried person etc. The claimant was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and it is not his contention that his marital prospects were lost, such a question does not arise in this case. The claimant was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and it is not his contention that his marital prospects were lost, such a question does not arise in this case. Even as per the evidence of PW2, the condition of the claimant is not such that it made him immobile or has any limping, shortening of leg resulting from the injuries. PW2 deposed that the claimant was suffering from (1) old compound fracture of both bones of right leg III-type B, which was operated, but malunited, painful with restricted moving of right knee joint with 30 degrees flexion movement with shortening of leg by one centi meter and (2) malunited, painful 20 degrees restricted movements due to old fracture of both bones operated with implant insertion to the forearm. But, finally he contended that the claimant has been suffering from 35% disability for both the injuries. It is just that the total percentage of disability due to two fracture injuries, it was assessed @35%. Therefore, an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be granted for loss of amenities of life and Rs.25,000/- towards disfigurement. Thus, in total Rs.2,77,277/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sventy Seven Thousand Two Seventy Seven only). Sl. No. Head of Compensation Amount 1 Pain and sufferance Rs.1,00,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.3,347/- 3 Attendant charges Rs.25,000/- 4 Transportation expenses Rs.25,000/- 5 Loss of past income Rs.48,930/- 6 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- 7 Disfigurement Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.2,77,277/- 19. Since the Tribunal awarded interest @6% p.a. only, it can be enhanced to @7.5% which would be reasonable. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the award and decree in appeal by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.2,77,277/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sventy Seven Thousand Two Seventy Seven only) payable with rate of interest i.e., @7.5% p.a., enhancing from 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. In view of the order of this Court dated 04.01.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 granting interim stay on the condition of depositing 50% of the decretal amount along with proportionate interest and costs within eight weeks from the date of the Order, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation as modified. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.