The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability, the criteria for assessing loss of income, and the principles for awarding compensation in personal injury cases.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant-New India Insurance Company Ltd. is insurer of the Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-21C-5056. The appellant has challenged the award dated 04.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khetri in Claim Case No.59/2006, by Additional District Judge, Khetri, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.7,97,850/- in favour of the injured-Satya Prakash, respondent No.1 herein along with 9% interest from the date of application.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that on 25.05.2006, Satya Prakash was a pillion rider on the motorcycle being driven by Ajay Kumar Bhargava (A.W.2). Case of the claimant is that as soon as the motorcycle reached near Khetri Bus Stand, the rash and negligent Jeep above mentioned dashed against the motorcycle causing fracture of tibia and fibula on left leg. The injury resulted in permanent disability. For the accident aforesaid, FIR No.163/2006 was registered with Khetri Police Station. After investigation of the case, police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of above referred Jeep with the conclusion that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver.

3. Two witnesses were produced by the claimant before the Tribunal besides several documentary evidences. No evidence was led by the defendants of the claim case. Appellant was one of the defendants.

4. The motor accident as well as insurance of the Jeep with the appellant is established by documentary evidence as exhibited on the record as FIR, charge-sheet and policy of insurance.

5. Mr. S.R. Joshi with Mr. Ganesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant challenges the award on the ground that due to injuries, there was no loss of salary to the claimant as he was a Government Employee and his disability did not lead him to leave the job or being demoted to some other post. Further contention is that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on assumption without any material to support the income of the claimant.

6. Claimant-Satya Prakash A.W.1 has specifically stated that at the time of accident, his monthly salary was Rs.12,341/-. The fact was not controverted during cross-examination of this witness. Ex.49 is the certificate issued by the Head Master of the school, where claimant was a Teacher. The certificate shows that the claimant was on medical leave for 74 days after the accident and in July, 2006 his salary was Rs.12,662/-. Since the finding of the Tribunal is based on evidence on record, it cannot be argued that the learned Tribunal awarded compensation under the head 'loss of income' on mere assumption.

7. The learned Tribunal multiplied the monthly income of the claimant taking round-figure of Rs.12,000/- per month with multiplier of 12 months to get yearly loss of income and thereafter, calculated 30% of the same as loss of income due to permanent disability. Contention is that the learned Tribunal has gone against the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and anr. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that for assessing the future loss of earning due to permanent disability, the Tribunal/Court must be conscious that the criteria should not be the extent of permanent disability found by the medical reports, rather the assessment should be based on the basis of inability to the injured, which prevented him from doing the same vocation or from performing other vocations. The Medical Board of three doctors found that due to compound fracture, 1/4 of the left leg led to permanent disability of about 30%.

8. The disability of a limb aforesaid did not affect the vocation of the claimant as a Teacher in Government School. Therefore, considering the settled principles referred above, the claimant was not affected by the disability aforesaid, as regards loss of income is concerned, however, the claimant has deposed that due to disability aforesaid, he feels incapacitated in normal walk, he cannot lift weights, a