The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of disability assessment in relation to earning capacity, as per the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and the judgment in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, [(2011) 1 SCC 343].

This appeal for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the claimant in respect of award dated 29-01-2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 393 of 2004 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.98,000/- in favour of the claimant, i.e. Rs.72,000/- for loss of future income, Rs.6,000/- for actual loss of income and Rs.20,000/- for medical treatment, conveyance allowance, special diet etc.

2. The Insurance Company has not challenged the award though a feeble attempt was made by Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, to urge that the accident itself is not proved. I am not permitting the Insurance Company to raise this issue because having satisfied the award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company cannot now turn around and argue that there was no accident at all. The only question is to what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled to.

3. The evidence on record clearly reveals that the claimant was admitted in the Silchar Medical College Hospital in two spells over 51 days. His index finger was amputated and there was injury to the middle finger also. Disability certificate has been issued in which the disability has been assessed at 40% but it is not clear whether the extent of disability has been calculated in relation to the entire body or in relation to the limb in question.

4. The fact of the matter is that the claimant remained admitted in hospital for 51 days. The claimant belongs to Dharmanagar and the claimant would have required at least two attendants round the clock to attend him. Even in the year 1997 the cost of one attendant who would go from Dharmanagar to Silchar would not be less than Rs.150/- per day and, therefore, I take the cost of two attendants at Rs.300/- per day and for 51 days it comes to Rs.15,300/-.

5. The claimant unfortunately did not prove any vouchers with regard to the expenses of his treatment. The claim petition was filed in the year 2004, 7(seven) years after the accident had taken place. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that persons belong to the lower strata of society who do not get any reimbursement may not retain the vouchers with regard to their treatment because they are unaware that they require the same in legal proceedings. Keeping in view the nature and length of treatment, I award the claimant Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses.

6. The claimant belongs to Dharmanagar and had to go twice to Silchar for his treatment. His attendants would have also had to go from Dharmanagar to Silchar for treatment and, therefore, I award Rs.5,000/- on account of transportation expenses.

7. Now comes the question as to the loss of income. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month which I accept to be correct. However, I am of the view that a person who remained hospitalized for 51 days would not be out of job for only two months. A person cannot be expected to jump out of the hospital bed and start working the next day. He would require some bed rest and keeping all these factors into consideration, I think the loss of income should be awarded to him for 4(four) months and accordingly, Rs.12,000/- is awarded in his favour.

8. Next comes the question as to the future loss of income. The learned Tribunal has assessed the loss at 40% of Rs.3,000/- but has awarded the same for only 5(five) years on the ground that the disability certificate is only for 5 years. Sri S. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) 41 of 2000 wherein the learned Single Judge held that in a case of a mason even though the disability was 40% but because the person was incapable of working as a mason, his disablement would be taken to be 100%. This judgment does not discuss any law point nor does it lay down any specific law. Only an observation h