ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant under Section

173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated20.11.2020 passed by Ist Additional Member, MACT Sardarpur, district Dhar in Claim Case No.76/2017 on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.

2. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not in dispute and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are also not in question. As per the findings of the Tribunal, in case of permanent disability of Santosh, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,63,115/- along with interest.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing and granting the general damages on the basis of 83% and 44% permanent disability of right leg and hand as total loss of earning capacity, loss of physical and bodily integrity, Rs. 20,000/- per month from agricultural works and by further adding 50% future prospects as per law. He further submitted that findings regarding nature of injuries, only 25% future loss of income as permanent disability, assessing amount of income as Rs.7,000/- by the Tribunal is arbitrary, erroneous and illegal and deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that Tribunal has grossly erred in not assessing and granting the general damages on the basis of 83% and 44% permanent disability of right hand and leg as total 100% future loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal erred in granting meagre sum for permanent disability and general damages. Hence, prays for enhancement of compensation.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued in support of the impugned award and contended that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation amount in the case which does not call for any interference by this Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Tribunal has committed error in holding 25% permanent disability. He relied on the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another 2011 ACJ 1. Para 10 of the judgment reads as under:- “10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation u