JUDGMENT : Mridul Kumar Kalita, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, impugning the judgment and award dated 30.04.2019, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 16/2017, whereby the appellant was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 24,42,464/- along with interest at the bank rate on 12.06.2018 to the claimant. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of this appeal are, in brief, that on 13.11.2016 at about 1.00 am, the claimant Md. Salamuddin @ Abdul Salam Ali and his wife, namely, Sabida Begum were travelling by a bus bearing Registration No. AS-01-W0043. When the said bus reached Paikan, under Krishnai Police Station, in Goalpara District, the bicycles loaded on the roof of the bus came in contact with a high-tension electricity wire, as a result of which the bus got electrocuted and the passengers sustained injuries. The wife of the claimant succumbed to her injuries on the same day in the hospital. The other passengers including the claimant were admitted at Goalpara Civil Hospital. The claimant was later on shifted to Nemcare Hospital and thereafter, Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH), where both his legs had to be amputed below the knee. 4. Thereafter, the claimant by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.2, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the aforementioned vehicular accident. The said claim case was registered as MAC Case No. 15/2017. 5. The present appellant contested the claim of the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing the written statement wherein it denied the averments made in the claim petition and also denied its liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. The owner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in spite of receiving notice, hence, the aforesaid enquiry proceeded ex-parte against them. 6. The owner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in spite of receiving notice, hence, the aforesaid enquiry proceeded ex-parte against them. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: “i. Whether on 13-11-2016, at about 01:00 A.M., at Paikan, under Krishnal Police Station, an accident has arisen due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing registration No.AS-01-W-0043 on the part of its driver and whether the said accident has caused injuries to Salamuddin @Abdul Salam Ali ? ii. If so, whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation, and if yes, what should be the quantum and who amongst the opposite parties is liable to pay the compensation amount ? 7. During the enquiry, the claimant adduced evidence of one witness and exhibited certain documents. The Insurance Company also adduced evidence of one witness and exhibited certain document. Ultimately by the judgment and award which has been impugned in this appeal both the issues were decided in favour of the claimant and the present appellant was directed to pay compensation to the claimant in the manner as already described in the foregoing paragraphs. 8. Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal mainly on two grounds. Firstly, he submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had erred in treating the loss of future earning capacity of the claimant at the rate of 80% in as much as there is no guidelines in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to assess loss of future earning capacity. However, he submits that the Schedule-I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 provides that in case of amputation of both legs below knee the loss earning capacity is to be regarded as 50%. He submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ought to have followed the aforesaid criteria while assessing the loss of future earning capacity of the claimant. 9. He submits that the percentage of permanent disability suffered by the claimant. cannot be equated with the loss of future earning capacity, as the capacity to earn depends upon various facts and it may not by always directly proportional to the percentage of permanent disability suffered by the claimant. 10. 9. He submits that the percentage of permanent disability suffered by the claimant. cannot be equated with the loss of future earning capacity, as the capacity to earn depends upon various facts and it may not by always directly proportional to the percentage of permanent disability suffered by the claimant. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Apex Court in the case of “ Lalan D. @ Lal Vs . The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ” reported in (2020) 9 SCC 805 has observed that when the compensation is awarded to a claimant treating loss of future earning capacity to be 100% or even anything more than 50%, the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear, as a result of only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under those heads, as otherwise there may be duplication in award of compensation. 11. He submits that in the instant case after awarding compensation against the head of loss of future earning capacity @ 80%, the Tribunal had also awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- each under the heads of loss of life and amenities and towards pain and suffering which has only resulted into duplication of award as observed by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case as well as in the case of “ Rajkumar Vs . Ajay Kumar and Others ” reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that as no cross objection has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded to him, hence, in the instant appeal, which has been filed by the Insurance Company, the question of enhancing compensation awarded to the claimant does not arise. In support of his submission he has cited the rulings of the Apex Court Satya Prakash Dwivedi Vs. Munna Alias Chandrabhan in the “ Yadav & Others” reported in (2025) 5 SCC 525 as well as the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Suwala Dutta Saikia & Others.” reported in (2017) 2 GLT 39. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Munna Alias Chandrabhan in the “ Yadav & Others” reported in (2025) 5 SCC 525 as well as the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Suwala Dutta Saikia & Others.” reported in (2017) 2 GLT 39. 13. On the other hand, Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants had submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicular Accident. He submits that against the head of loss of future earning capacity, rather the Tribunal has assessed the compensation on a lower side taking loss of future earning capacity at 80%. He further submits that since the claimant was a mason, he would be totally disabled to perform the works which he was performing prior to the accident, due to amputation of his both legs. Hence, he submits that the compensation awarded against the head of loss of future earning capacity may be increased taking such loss of future earning capacity to the extent of 100%. He submits that the loss of earning capacity of the claimant has to be ascertained with the reference to the nature of work which he was performing and, as such, the mechanical application of the criteria laid down in Schedule-I of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 may not be justified. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Others” reported in (2012) 2 SCC 267 . 14. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that in an appeal preferred by the insurer even in the absence of cross objection by the claimant, the Court cannot deny the claimant just compensation, as such, he submits that the future loss of earning capacity may be assessed to the extent of 100% as against 80%, assessed by the Motor Accident Tribunal. In support of his submission, he has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Surekha and Others. Vs. Santosh and Others ” reported in (2021) 16 SCC 467 . 15. In support of his submission, he has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Surekha and Others. Vs. Santosh and Others ” reported in (2021) 16 SCC 467 . 15. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal was also right in awarding cost of artificial limb for both the amputated legs of the claimant at Rs. 6,00,000/- and no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in that regard. He submits that the purpose of granting fair compensation is to restore the injured person to the position in which he was prior to the accident as best as possible. Hence, grant of compensation for enabling the claimant to use prosthetic limbs is only just and fair and no infirmity is there in the impugned judgment and award on that count. 16. He further submits that in the case of “ Lalan D. @ Lal Vs . The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ” (Supra), the Apex Court has observed that the victim cannot be all together be deprived of compensation under the head of pain and suffering and in the said case, the compensation awarded to the claimant was increased from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. He, accordingly, submits that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company may be dismissed and the claimant may be granted just and fair compensation by enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded to him. 17. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 18. In the instant case, there is no dispute as regards the fact that due to the injuries sustained by the claimant on the fateful day when the bus got electrocuted while it reached Paikan under Krishnai Police Station, both the legs of the claimant had to be amputated below the knee. It is also therein the evidence that the claimant was a mason at the time of accident. It also appears that considering the materials on record and considering the fact that both the legs of the claimant were amputated below the knees, the functional disability i.e., the loss of future earning capacity of the claimant was assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of 80%. 19. It also appears that considering the materials on record and considering the fact that both the legs of the claimant were amputated below the knees, the functional disability i.e., the loss of future earning capacity of the claimant was assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of 80%. 19. The loss of future earning capacity caused due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident is dependent on many factors, like the nature of work, which the claimant was performing before the accident. It may not be the same for two different persons sustaining same kind of injuries. The same injury may affect two different persons in different ways. This has been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of “Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Others” (Supra) wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows: “8. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in pegging down the disability of the appellant to 50% with reference to Schedule 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.” 20. While assessing the loss of future earning capacity due to the permanent disability, the Tribunal is to first assess as to whether the disability suffered by the claimant is permanent or temporary. In the instant case, there is no dispute over the said fact. Thereafter, if the disability is permanent in nature it has to find out as to whether the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood and whether in spite of the permanent disability he could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on or whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities or functions but could carry on some other lesser scales of activities and functions, so that he continues to earn his livelihood. Though, the Tribunal has not discussed in details the aforementioned aspects, however, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the claimant was a mason and his both legs had to be amputated below the knees as a result of injury sustained in the accident, he could not effectively carry on the work of mason as he was doing prior to the accident. Though, some guess work has been done making an estimate of 80% of the loss of future earning capacity, by the Motor Accident Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the assessment made by the Tribunal against the loss of future earning capacity of the claimant cannot be regarded as absurd or without any basis and may under the facts and circumstances of this case be regarded as just compensation against the said head. Accordingly, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessment of loss of future earning capacity of the claimant may be made as per the criteria laid down in the Schedule-I of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 does not appear to be convincing to this Court and therefore, the same is rejected. 21. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that once the compensation is awarded against the head of loss of future earning capacity to the extent of more than 50%, the need to award compensation separately under head of loss of amenities or such an expectation of life is not there, this Court is in agreement with the said submission, as same has also been observed by the Apex Court in case of “ Lalan D. @ Lal Vs . The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ” (Supra). However, it is also held by the apex Court in the said case that the claimant cannot be all together deprived of from getting compensation under the head of pain and suffering. 22. In the instant case, the legs of the claimant had to be amputated due to electrocution of the bus in which he was travelling, due to which he has suffered immense pain and trauma and as such, he is entitled to get compensation under the head of pain and suffering. Though, he may not be entitled to get compensation under head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life as he has already been awarded compensation to the extent of 80% against the head of loss of future earning capacity. 23. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant is not entitled to the compensation awarded to the him @ Rs. 2,00,000/- each against the heads of loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Same is accordingly deducted from the total compensation awarded to him by the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly. 24. This appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. 25. The statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal may be returned by the registry after proper verification.