The assessment of compensation for permanent disability must separately evaluate the impact on earning capacity, not merely equate it to medical disability percentages.

Satyen Vaidya, J.

1. By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed impugned award dated 14.12.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Claim Petition No. 39 of 2007.

2. Appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act against respondents with the allegation that on 31.07.2005, a Scooter being ridden by appellant was hit by Car bearing No. HP-33A- 2061 being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner at place Kansa Chowk, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. as a result of which appellant suffered injuries and permanent disablement of left lower limb to the extent of 10%. It was also alleged that the left leg of appellant has shortened by one inch.

3. Respondent No 1 being the owner and driver of the vehicle contested the claim by denying the factum of accident. All other averments made in the petition were also denied in generality.

4. Respondent No. 2 being insurer of the offending vehicle also filed its reply and denied liability to indemnify respondent No. 1 by alleging violation of terms and conditions of contract of insurance by the insured. It was also averred that the appellant himself was negligent as a result of which accident took place.

5. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues-

1) Whether on 31.07.2005 at Kansha Chowk Vehicle in question was driven by respondent Ram Lal in rash and negligent manner which met with an accident resulting in causing the injuries to the claimants as alleged? OPP.

2 Whether respondent Ram Lal was not possessing valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3.

3. Whether vehicle in question was plied in contravention of terms of insurance policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as alleged? OPR-3.

4) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for claim of compensation, if so to what amount and by whom? OPP.

5) Relief.

Issue Nos. 1 and 4 were decided in affirmative, whereas all other issues were decided in negative. The petition was accordingly allowed and petitioner was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,85,918/- alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of petition. The liability to satisfy the award was held to be joint and several between the respondents.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the income of the appellant has been assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on a very lower side, whereas the evidence on record proved his income to be Rs. 12,000/- per month. It has also been submitted that though the disability certified by medical expert in case of appellant was 10% of the lower left limb, but the actual functional disability was much more as the appellant was self-employed worker engaged in the job of shuttering in construction of buildings. According to him, after accident the appellant has lost substantial capacity to perform the job in the same manner as he used to do before receiving injury. The impugned award has also been challenged on the ground that the learned Tribunal had not taken into consideration the future prospects of enhancement of income of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand have supported the impugned award by contending that learned Tribunal had awarded just and reasonable compensation to the appellant keeping in view the evidence on record.

9. As per case projected by the appellant, he was engaged in providing shuttering in construction of buildings. It was also specifically averred that on account of injuries an