In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal should consider the effect of the disability on the earning capacity of the injured person and not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity.

1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand ('the Tribunal') by judgment and award dated 06.10.2001 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,38,500/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation i.e. 24.04.1995.

2. Undisputed facts which have been found by the the Tribunal and are not in question are that the claimant was travelling in the car being registration No.GRQ-111, which was being driven by one Naresh Bhai and while travelling from Ahmedabad to Ajmer, a luxury bus bearing registration No.APO2-Y-1449 being driven by respondent No.1 - Narayan Gauda collided with the car, resulting in death of the driver Naresh Bhai and injuries to all the passengers travelling in the car.

3. In the application for compensation ('application') it was claimed that the appellant suffered multiple fractures and hospitalization at Ahmedabad for 25 days, he remained plastered for three months and was treated for six months at home, he was not able to do the same work, which he could do before the accident, he was working in the Photostat Machine Manufacturing Company and was getting Rs. 6,000/- as salary per month. He filed disability certificate Exhibit-79 showing 18% disability and several documents relating to treatments.

4. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence led by the claimant, came to the conclusion that medical bills and payment receipts of Rs. 28,120/- were produced by the claimant, no record was produced in support of the contention that the claimant remained admitted at Ahmedabad for 25 days. The disability certificate Exhibit-79 dated 31.10.1999 given by Dr. Apurva Shastri (AW-8), wherein, it was indicated that the claimant had suffered 18% disablement, was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards seven simple injuries and the mental stress suffered by the claimant, Rs. 30,000/- for fractures in femur, tibia and fibula, Rs. 28,500/- towards medicines, Rs. 10,000/- towards travelling to the hospital and nutritious diet and towards 18% disablement and its affect on his future income the appellant was awarded Rs. 40,000/- and for loss of income for the period of his confinement on account of fractures suffered, he was awarded Rs. 15,000/- alongwith cost of Rs. 5,000/-. In all a sum of Rs. 1,38,500/- was awarded alongwith interest as indicated hereinbefore.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the serious injuries suffered by the appellant is highly inadequate and against the material available on record. It was submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects viz-a-viz the 18% permanent disablement suffered by him and has awarded highly inadequate compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of future prospects. It was further submitted that adequate evidence was available on record, however, the same has not been properly appreciated.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference and in fact the same is on the higher side and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.

8. It is true that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident resulting in fractures of both legs at femur, tibia and fibula and other injuries on his chin. The claimant examined himself as AW-3 and produced documents Exhibit-79 to Exhibit-148 relating to his permanent disablement, treatment and payment receipts. The appellant claimed that he was working in a Photostat Machine Manufacturing Company and was getting Rs. 6,000/- as salary per month.

9. In view of the evidence, which were produced by the ap