(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the impugned award dated 29.9.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) whereby a sum of Rs.2,01,070/ - was awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant/ claimant as compensation in a Claim Petition No.505/06 which he had filed for seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident which took place on 13.02.2006 when he was on a bicycle and he was struck by a truck bearing registration number DL -IG -2695 being driven by respondent Suresh allegedly in a rash and negligent manner. The said compensation of Rs.2,01,070/ - is made up of Rs.1,29,532/ - on account of permanent disability; Rs.11,538/ - towards medical treatment; Rs.10,000/ - towards conveyance and special diet and Rs.50,000/ - on account of pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant/ appellant seeking enhancement of compensation. The main grievance of the appellant/ claimant is that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that he has suffered amputation of his right leg and so was not able to perform his job of salesmanship and further that he has suffered disability to the extent of 50%, but the Tribunal has reduced the same to 30%. It was also his grievance that the Tribunal has erred in not considering his income to be Rs.8,000/ - per month from salesmanship and deducted 1/3rd thereof towards his personal living expenses, compensation of Rs.50,000/ - towards loss of amenities of life and pain and suffering is also alleged to be on lower side. The next grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has not considered that he would be required to use artificial limb which will cost more than Rs. 1 lac and it will have to be changed the same from time to time. The awarding of compensation of Rs.10,000/ - towards conveyance and special diet is also alleged to be on much lower side.
(2.) WITH regard to the treatment, the appellant has placed on record medical bills showing the expenses incurred in the sum of Rs.11,538/ -. This being the entire amount incurred on account of medical treatment, the same was granted by the Tribunal. I consider that the same does not suffer from any infirmity.
(3.) IT is settled law that in all injury cases, assessment of disability does not impact the earning capacity and that the disability has to be seen in the context of the particular occupation or the nature of avocation of injured. It is not that in every case when a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% below knee, the same would be with reference to the whole body. The disability of a limb or any part of the body has to be seen as total percentage of the limb and obviously cannot be assumed to the extent of disability of full body. The extent of permanent disability of the limb cannot be considered to be the functional disability of the body nor it could be assumed to result in corresponding incident of loss of earning capacity, as disability would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation of salesmanship, though it may impede his smooth functioning. In the absence of there being any cogent evidence on record with regard to his avocation and assuming the same to be salesmanship, the permanent disability of 50% of below knee was rightly taken as 30% functional disability and also loss of future earning capacity.