Compensation for permanent disability must accurately reflect loss of earning capacity influenced by the nature of the victim's work.

1. Learned advocates for both the parties are ad idem on the point that the instant appeal may be disposed of giving a goby to the technicalities involved in the process.

2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant / claimant that the claimant has been suffering from financial distress for want of sufficiency of money for his sustenance in this pandemic and urges the court for disposing of the appeal on the basis of materials furnished by both the parties to the case, which is not opposed by the learned advocate representing the insurance company / respondent No. 1.

3. When learned advocates for both the parties are agreeable to the expeditious disposal of the instant appeal, the court should not stand in the way.

4. The appeal has emerged out against the judgment and award dated 13.9.2013, passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Murshidabad, in MAC Case No. 329 of 2010, in a claim case under S.166 of the MV Act, 1988, granting an award to the tune of Rs. 50,000 to claimant / appellant, namely, Ranjit Sarkar for the injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident, which occurred on 15.4.2007, by reason of involvement of vehicle bearing No. WB 57-7902 in consequence of rash and negligent driving.

5. Facts leading to the accident and injuries received by the claimant are not at all disputed.

6. The compensation was awarded on a lump sum basis only on the head of 'pain and suffering', upon considering the injuries sustained by the injured - claimant, with which the appellant was not satisfied. Hence this appeal.

7. In course of hearing of this appeal all the points are squeezed into three points.

8. Ms. Sima Ghosh, learned advocate representing appellant / claimant, submits that the Tribunal has erred in law in not assessing the loss of earning capacity, or the loss of future earning capacity of the claimant due to the accident.

9. It is contended that the Tribunal should have assessed the compensation amount on the basis of monthly income of Rs. 3,000 of the victim.

10. Ms. Ghosh further submits that the loss of earning capacity rendering the injured - claimant to a permanent disabled person should have been assessed in accordance with the disability certificate, issued by the Medical Board, and no future prospects having been granted by the learned Tribunal while computing the compensation amount, therefore the award cannot be termed to be 'just'.

11. Ms. Ghosh incidentally submits that the victim was around 41 years old on the date of accident, and as such multiplier of 14 should have been adopted by the learned court below for perfect quantification of award.

12. Mrs. Sucharita Paul, learned advocate representing the insurance company / respondent No. 1, without disputing the facts leading to the injury sustained by the victim submits that the award has been rightly decided by Tribunal upon considering pros and cons of the case. She however strongly opposes the case made out by the appellant. According to insurance company / respondent No. 1, there lies nothing to be interfered with in this appeal, and as such, there is no scope for making any interference by this court.

13. Reliance is placed by the appellant on some decisions rendered by the Apex Court in cases of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , 2011 ACJ 1 (SC); Yadava Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2010 ACJ 2713 (SC); Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) and Jagdish v. Mohan , 2018 ACJ 1011 (SC), so as to challenge the award in terms of the points raised, mentioned hereinabove.

14. Th