Appropriate compensation must reflect the actual loss of earning capacity resulting from permanent disability, not merely the percentage of disability.

1. This appeal is filed by the original claimant challenging the award dated 7.4.2021 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in TS (MAC) 47 of 2017.

2. The factual background of the case is as under:
The appellant had gone to the house of Ratan Ch. Das (respondent No. 1) for painting work on 12.10.2016. At about 2.30 p.m., the appellant requested said Ratan Ch. Das to drop him at his home at Hatipara, Agartala on his motorbike. Pursuant to the request of the appellant, said Ratan Ch. Das took the appellant on his motorbike and left for the home of the appellant. Just before reaching home, appellant slipped from the motorbike and received fatal injuries. The injured - appellant was immediately taken to A.G.M.C. and G.B.P. Hospital at Agartala from where he was referred to Peerless Hospital in Kolkata on 13.10.2016. He received treatment in Peerless Hospital as an indoor patient from 13.10.2016 to 28.10.2016. After his discharge from the said hospital, he received follow - up treatment in various hospitals within and outside the State. Thereafter, he filed a petition under S.166, MV Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 14,44,000 from the owner - cum - driver and insurer of the offending motorbike.

3. The owner - cum - driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No. 1) appeared and filed written reply to contest the case. In his written reply he admitted the accident. He, however, denied his negligence and claimed that there was fault in the road on which they were travelling. According to the said respondent, on a particular place of the road few bricks had come off which escaped his notice, as a result he fell with his motorbike at the place and the claimant - appellant who was a pillion rider on his motorbike also slipped from the vehicle and received injuries. The respondent claimed that his vehicle was insured for third party risk and the insurance company was liable to pay compensation.

4. The insurance company (respondent No. 2) also contested the case by filing separate written reply wherein it claimed that insurance company could be saddled with the liability to pay compensation only if a valid insurance policy was produced by the owner of the offending vehicle and it was proved that his driving licence and other documents of his vehicle were in operation.

5. The claimant as well as the opponents led evidence at the Tribunal to prove their respective cases and the Tribunal after hearing the parties and appreciating evidence led by them disbelieved the case of the claimant and by an award dated 7.3.2019 dismissed the claim petition observing as under:
"(8) As the claimant - petitioner Rakesh Debnath has failed to establish the fact that he had sustained bodily injury out of the alleged road accident, obviously the claimant - petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation under S.166 of the MV Act. Hence, issue No. 2 also is hereby decided in negative and against the claimant - petitioner."

6. The claimant - appellant has challenged the judgment of the Tribunal in MAC Appeal No. 37 of 2019 before this court. The said appeal was disposed of by this court by judgment and order dated 5.8.2020 in MAC Appeal No. 37 of 2019 whereby the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal with the following directions:
"(11) In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with following directions:
(i) The award of the Claims Tribunal dated 7.3.2019 is set aside.
(ii) It is held that the claimant received bodily injuries in an accident which took place on 12.10.201