4 €'i, HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCS6ARH AT BIUISPUR M.A. 608 of 2005 CORAA^; Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ & Hon'ble Shri bilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Non^oppticant No.3 Re^iondent Applicont Respondents Non-cpplicants &2. .1 National Insurance Company Limited, Through ; Branch Manager, Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bitaspur (C.(5.) Tehsil & Dist: Bilaspur. Versus 1. Ramkumar Sahu, age 35 yeors, S/o Nanva Sohu, Resident of village Bhatgaon, Post Bhatgaon, Tahsii Mungeli, Dist ; Bilaspur (C.6.) Present Address: j<ududand, Bilospur (C.G.) 2. Shailesh Pandey, age 32 years, S/o Budhnath Pandey, Resident of Sector- 11, Road No.5, Zone No.l, Kursipar, Police Station-Chhaoni, Dist. Durg. 3. Sulab Chandra, age 28 years, S/o Inte Chhedilal Vaishya, Resident of 6-7, Vijay Complex Camp, Bhiiai Power House, Police Station Chhaoni, Dist. Durg. Shri Srikumar Agrawal, 5r. Advocate with Shri Anand ©upta,Counsel for fhe appellant. ORAL OR&ER (Passed on 24th January, 2006) The fq.llowmg oral order of the Court was passed by 5. R. NAVAK.C.f. 1. In this appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, the only jround urged by the learned counssl for the Insurance Compnay was that in cssessing future loss of income, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) has taken the degree of permanent disability nt i, though as per medical evidence, the permanent disability is only 25%. That was the only ground urged before us. It needs t6 be noticed that though according to the medical evidence, permanent disability is at s lower degree, the Tribunal, in the facts and cir-cumstances of the case and having regar-d to the impact of the injuries on avocation of the injured, may take the fynctional disability at a degree which is more than what is recorded in discibility cisrtiflcGte or doctor's evidencs. . For example, in m accident if o rnanual worker loses a limb, it may not be a case of cent percent disability' In terms of disability certificate or in terms of technica! view of the matter, but, the Tribuna! may regard it cent percent functional disability. The M.A.C.T. having regard to the nature and jrovity of the injuries sustained by the injured and their impact ors the earning capacity of the injured, has taken the disability at 50% and in doing so, we think, it has not committed ony illegality. There is no merit in the appea! and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Judge Sd/- saheb I Judge