JUDGMENT

T.Amarnath Goud, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03.04.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2003 by the Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, the Tribunal).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28/29.12.2002 at about 2.00 am midnight, while the appellant was proceeding in DCM van bearing No.AP10T 7343 from Inderpriyal village along with the vegetables to sell the same in Monda Market, Secunderabad, and when it reached the outskirts of Kallakal Village, a lorry bearing No.AP16X 7576 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the DCM Van from backside. In the said accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He filed aforesaid MVOP against respondents Nos.1 to 2, owner and insurer of aforesaid lorry, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded total compensation of Rs. 48,585/- under various heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.

5. Sri E.Venu Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that though the appellant filed Ex.A.8, disability certificate, showing that the appellant suffered 30% disability, the Tribunal did not take the same into consideration and did not award any amount under that head. He further submits that in the accident, the appellant sustained severe injuries, for which, he underwent surgery and five holes DC plate was inserted to the radius and also nailing was done to the ulna for the ulna and radius bones of the right forearm. Due to the said disability, the appellant is not able to lift any weight with right hand and he has lost grip, due to which, he cannot do his work of vegetable vending in future and hence, his functional disability can be considered at 100% and he seeks to enhance the compensation amount. In support of his argument, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar, 2011 1 SCC 343 .

6. Ms.Neha, counsel appearing for Sri Muddu Vijay, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order by taking into consideration all the aspects and seeks to dismiss the appeal.

7. In Raj Kumar's case (supra), the Apex Court summarized the principles with regard to assessment of the effect of permanent disability on the actual earning capacity and it reads as follows:

"10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability wi