S. Siri Jagan, J.

The insurance company in O.P.(M.V).No.1361/2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the said O.P. filed by the 1st respondent herein, claiming compensation for the injuries and consequent disability suffered by the 1st respondent in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned and driven by the second respondent, which vehicle was insured with the appellant. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the second respondent in driving the vehicle, which caused the accident, awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

	Head of claim	Amount awarded (Rs.)
1.	Loss of earnings	29,558.00
2.	Transport to hospital	1,000.00
3.	Extra nourishment	1,000.00
4.	Damage to clothings & other articles	750.00
5.	Treatment expenses	57,671.00
6.	Bystander's expenses	1,000.00
7.	Pain and suffering	20,000.00
8.	Permanent disability	139,536.00
	Total	2,50,515.00

The appellant challenges the award of compensation under the head, 'permanent disability'.

2. The contention of the appellant is that the 1st respondent is a Statistical Investigator Grade I under the Government of Kerala. He was aged 32 years at the time of accident on 17.5.2008. The disability certificate certified that he suffered 10% whole body disability. The Tribunal awarded compensation for loss of earning capacity taking the income of the 1st respondent as Rs.6,840/- per month and adopting 17 as the multiplier. The appellant contends that the Tribunal could not have awarded any compensation under that head. Although the Tribunal describes the amount awarded as compensation for permanent disability, from the calculation, it is clear that what is awarded is compensation for loss of earning capacity. The contention is that the 1st respondent has no case that as a result of the disability suffered by him on account of the injuries in the accident, he lost his employment or that his salary has been in any way reduced. In fact, he did not adduce any evidence whatsoever even to the effect that his future prospects in his employment has been impaired in any manner because of the disability. In such circumstances, the Tribunal could not have awarded compensation for loss of earning capacity, which actually the Tribunal did, but under the head, 'permanent disability'. The appellant, therefore, seeks deduction of the said amount from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. This is stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant. She submits that the Tribunal has done the correct thing, insofar as the disability certificate certified 10% disability and in the decision of the Supreme Court in Kavitha v. Deepak (2012 (3) KLT SN 141 (C.No.144) (SC)), the Supreme Court has held that in case of permanent disability, compensation can be awarded both for loss of earning capacity as well as for disability. According to the counsel for the 1st respondent, that only has been done by the Tribunal.

4. We have considered the rival contentions in detail.

5. On account of permanent disability caused in an accident, a claimant suffers in two ways. The first is the adverse effect of that disability on his earning power. In other words, if the disability results in reduction in his capacity to earn income to any extent, the claimant has to be compensated for the same. The second is the adverse effect of that disability on his personal life. That is, if on account of the disability, the appellant cannot do his personal chores in his day to day life to any extent, he will have to be compensated for the same also. Apart from compensation under these two heads, for disability, there can