injured due to the accidental injury and laid the detailed guidelines. From the consideration of the judgments, it is the duty of this Court to see whether the injured 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 can continue to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. In this case, PW1's evidence is that his one side of the body was totally paralyzed and he is living with the permanent help of the attender even for his day to day activities. Before the accident, he was running mushroom soup stall and fruits juice stall. Apart from that, he was earning as a yoga master. Due to the above paralysation, he is totally deprived of his avocation. He has no father and has his only son is mother feeding baby and he has no other relative to continue the mushroom soup stall and fruits juice stall. Therefore, this Court can assess the future loss of earning capacity as 100%. Even though, he pleaded that he was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month but, no document was produced. Therefore, this Court fixes the notional income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per month and he was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and apply 40% future prospect and calculate the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.21,000/- and apply the multiplier of 16 as per the Sarla Verma cas e and calculate the loss of earning capacity and loss of future income as follows :
