ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. The claimant is in appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 4,76,200/- with interest @ 9% under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in Compensation Case No. 70 of 2013 from the date of filing of the claim case for the permanent disability suffered by him to the extent of 20%. 2. The claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while he was going on his motorcycle with his wife Anwari Begum bearing Registration No. JH05R-1957. It is alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the truck bearing Registration No. OR-11C-6293 resulting in his leg being fully damaged in the said accident. The appellant was employed at Saudi Arabia and was getting Rs. 19,476/- as monthly salary. 3. Learned Tribunal awarded the compensation by taking 20% functional disability and by accepting Rs.9,000/- per month as his salary. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the computation of compensation is perverse for the reason that the evidence on record has not been accepted and discarded without any reason. As per the age of the claimant, the passport was adduced into evidence and marked as Ext.4 in which the date of birth is 05.07.1966, showing his age to be 43 years 01 month and 07 days at the time of accident on 12.08.2009. However, the age of the claimant has been taken to be 61 years and a corresponding multiplier of 7 has been taken which should have been 14 as per his age of 43 years. 5. Further, the claimant had undergone long treatment at different places for which medical bills were proved and marked as Ext. 3 for a total sum of Rs. 6,65,172/-, whereas the Tribunal had accepted only Rs. 22,971/- as the expenses on treatment. 6. Further, had adduced into evidence his salary certificate regarding his employment in Saudi Arabia where he was having a net salary of Rs 1615 and a gross salary of Rs.19,840/- per month. Learned Tribunal has, however, computed the compensation by taking Rs.9,000/- per month. 7. No compensation has been awarded under loss of income under the head of future prospect. Further, as per the disability certificate, the claimant had suffered 50% of disability, however, the compensation has been awarded taking 20% functional disability. Learned Tribunal has, however, computed the compensation by taking Rs.9,000/- per month. 7. No compensation has been awarded under loss of income under the head of future prospect. Further, as per the disability certificate, the claimant had suffered 50% of disability, however, the compensation has been awarded taking 20% functional disability. It is argued in this regard that due to permanent disability of his leg, he was not able to resume his work in Saudi Arabia and, therefore, it amounted to 100%functional disability. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has defended the award. It is argued that learned Tribunal has discussed at length, the evidence on salary and occupation of the claimant, and assigned specific reasons for accepting Rs.9000 per month as his income. It has been noted that as per Ext.8, the injured was earning 1000 Riyal, whereas the claimant in his deposition had claimed that he was earning 1600 Riyal from his occupation in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, as per the certificate, the applicant was working since 17.01.1997 in Airport Project, but the document was adduced into evidence showed his arrival way back in 2004 and from another document showed his arrival at Delhi Airport on 03.07.2009. There was no evidence regarding work permit VISA for job at Saudi Arabia since 1997. Ext.5 showed the basic salary of the injured to be 800 Riyal with an overtime of 1095 Riyal. Considering these evidences, learned Tribunal held that the claimant was not having a secure permanent employment in Saudi Arabia at the time of accident and accepted the income of 800 Riyal corresponding to almost Rs 9000/. 9. With regard to functional disability, it is submitted that there is no evidence to show that the disability compromised the functional ability of the claimant as he was working as Supervisor in Water Treatment Plant in Saudi Arabia, therefore the learned tribunal accepted 20% as the functional disability. 10. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, I find that learned Tribunal has assigned sufficient reasons for accepting Rs.9000 per month as the monthly income of the claimant which needs no interference. However, there is an error in computing the compensation by taking 61 years of age, medical bill of Rs. 6,65,172 has been wrongly accepted, and only Rs.1,50,000 has been awarded under that head. However, there is an error in computing the compensation by taking 61 years of age, medical bill of Rs. 6,65,172 has been wrongly accepted, and only Rs.1,50,000 has been awarded under that head. Further, the point of disability (Ext.6), has been adduced into evidence which has been issued by the Medical Board presided over by the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, East Singhbhum. The Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 {Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.} has dealt with at length and laid the law regarding the manner in which the functional disability has to be assessed which is as under: “13. 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 disability (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.” 11. In the present case, as per the case of the claimant, he was serving as a Supervisor in Water Treatment Plant in Saudi Arabia and there is no evidence to suggest that it was this disability that resulted in loosing employment. I do not find any error in taking 20% as the functional disability. Further, the claimant will also be entitled to loss of income under the head of future prospect @ of 25%. I do not find any error in taking 20% as the functional disability. Further, the claimant will also be entitled to loss of income under the head of future prospect @ of 25%. The final compensation is as under: Monthly Income Rs.9,000/- 20% functional disability as loss of income Rs.1800/- Annual loss of income Rs.1800 x 12 Rs.21,600/- Future Prospect 25% (age 43 years) Rs.5400/- Total Rs.27,000/- Multiplier of Rs.27,000/- x 14 Rs.3,78,000/- Medical Bill Rs.6,65,172 Total Rs.10,43,172/- The Insurance company is liable to pay total compensation of Rs.10,43,172/- with interest @ of 6% from the date of claim application. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of the order before the learned Tribunal and the same shall be disbursed to the claimant on proper identification. This Misc. Appeal is accordingly, allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.