6. The claimant got examined one Dr. T. Prasad as PW.2, an Orthopedic Surgeon, on his behalf. PW.2 stated in his evidence before the Tribunal that he examined the claimant on 26.07.2002, by which time the petitioner was still experiencing pain in the knee and ankle of right leg; the movement of right knee and ankle was restricted; he is not able to walk freely. The doctor assessed the permanent disability at 35% and issued Ex.A-6 disability certificate. The learned Tribunal on the ground that PW.2 was not the doctor who treated the claimant for the fractures but only examined him and issued Ex.A-6 disability certificate did not accept the evidence of the doctor. Insofar as the disability is concerned, I am of the view that the Tribunal is not justified in doing so. Ex.A-5, discharge summary, issued by the Owaisi Hospital clearly shows that both bones of the right leg of the claimant were fractured and operation was conducted and bone grafting was done. The learned Tribunal, in my view, ought to have accepted the version of Dr. T. Prasad (PW.2) to the extent that the claimant sustained functional disability of 35%. What is the effect of disability on the earning capacity of the claimant, however, may be altogether a different thing and the Tribunal must be in a position to assess the effect of disability on the earning capacity of the claimant and thereafter has to fix the compensation basing on the multiplier method. But the learned Tribunal granted lump sum amounts for the injuries sustained by the claimant, pain and suffering etc., and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.1,79,062/-. It would appear that the learned Tribunal below has not adopted appropriate method in computing the compensation. It is the specific version of the claimant that he was a student of II year B.Com., and was getting Rs.3,000/- p.m. by doing a part time job as Data Entry Operator in Lotus Computers and he also
