Prakash Shrivastava, J:

1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the award dated 19th March, 2007 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Ujjain in claim case No. 55/06, disputing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The respondent No. 1 Badrilal had suffered injuries in motor accident which had taken place on 13rd May, 2003, therefore, he had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned award found that respondent No. 1 had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% in the left leg. The Tribunal assessed the income of respondent No. 1 as र 36,000/- per annum and found the age of respondent No. 1 at the time of accident as 50 years and applied the multiplier of 13. Thus, keeping in view of the annual income and the 60% disability suffered, the Tribunal found the future loss of income र 2,81,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of र 5,500/- for loss of income during the treatment period, र 5,000/- for special diet, र 2,500/- for the transportation charges and र 10,000/- for mental and physical pain and suffering. The Tribunal awarded a sum of र 52,712/- for actual medical expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of र 3,56,712/- (round figure र 3,56,800/-) alongwith the interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has found the permanent disability of 60% in respect of particular limb, but has committed an error in treating the said disability in reference to the whole body, therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent pressing his cross - objection submitted that the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and looking to the nature of injuries suffered by respondent No. 1, there is 100% loss of income and the Tribunal has also committed an error in awarding the lower amount under the different heads.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Dr. O.P. Gupta (A.W-4), who is an Orthopedician and who had treated respondent No. 1 had opined that the injuries received by respondent No. 1 were serious in nature. He had suffered fracture on the upper l/3rd part of tibia of left leg and also suffered fracture in the upper part of the left thigh in femur bone. He opined that the muscles of the right leg had become weak and the movement of the left hip was restricted by 21% . The movement of left knee was also restricted by 12% and there was 6% disability due to the weakening of muscles of the right thigh. He also opined that the respondent No. 1 could not walk without support of the stick. He found that the respondent No. 1 has difficulty in climbing, standing on the left leg, sitting by folding both the legs and sitting on knees and his movement was restricted by 22.5%. Doctor also found that there was shortening of left lower limb to the extent of 11 c.m. in comparison to the right lower limb, which has resulted into 10% permanent disability. Thus, doctor opined that the respondent No. 1 had suffered disability in the left leg to the extent of 60%. The Tribunal has believed the statement of the doctor as well as the disability certificate given by him. The issue involved in the appeal is whether the 60% disability suffered by respondent No. 1 in the left leg can be treated to be the disability of 60% in reference to the whole body while calculating the loss of future income.

7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Another, reported in 1976 A.C.J. 141 : 1976 T.A.C. 348 in the case of amputation of the left arm above the elbow of the carpenter has found that the carpenter due to the amputation had become unfit for the work of a carpentry, therefore, the disablement was total and not partial as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only. Similarly, this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balmat Singh and Another, reported in 1997 A.C.J. 368 : 1999 (1) T.A.C. 397 has held that due to the amputation of leg at the knee the cleaner/conductor of the truck was not able to perform his duty, which he was discharging and determined to the loss of earning capacity at 100%. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Krishnapal Singh v. Gulzar Singh and Others, reported in 2008 A.C.J. 1090 has upheld the award of र 5,39,000/- in case of 65% permanent disablement on account of fracture of both legs. This Court in the matter of Dr. Praveen Yadav v. Aditya Kumar Nigam and Another, reported in 2008 A.C.J. 1491 : 2007 (3) T.A.C. 950 in the case of disability suffered due to the fracture on the left thigh and fibula of right leg had awarded the compensation amount assessing the loss of earning capacity at 50%.

8. In the present case, the Ext. P/18 is the permanent disability certificate given by Dr. O.P. Gupta, in which he has stated that respondent No. 1 had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% and that the respondent No. 1 who is a farmer will not be able to do the farm work. The evidence on record indicates that the respondent No. 1 is not in a position to do the agricultural work, but he is doing some cultivation work on 'adhbatai'. Thus, it is found that looking to the extent of injuries which the respondent No. 1 had suffered and the nature of his work, the Tribunal has not committed any error in treating th

e 60% loss of income due to the permanent disability suffered by him. Thus, the calculation of future loss of income of र 2,81,000/- by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is also found that the compensation amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of income during the treatment period, the expenses for special diet, convenience charges and pain and suffering is just and proper. 9. Thus, the amount of र 3,56,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is upheld by rejecting the appeal of Insurance Company and the cross objection of the respondent No. 1. Appeal dismissed.