IMPORTANT POINT
The percentage of permanent disability does not automatically determine the loss of earning capacity; a comprehensive assessment considering the claimant's occupation, age, and the nature of the disability is essential for determining just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short, 'Tribunal') whereby respondent No. 1-claimant has been awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 22,99,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% except on the component of loss of future income.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.07.2010 at about 7:30 p.m., a vehicle bearing Registration No. JK02K-7247 collided with a bus bearing Registration No. JK02N-8279 at Jhajjar Kotli bridge which resulted into injuries to the passengers travelling in the bus including respondent No. 1-claimant herein, who also received grievous injuries. The accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JK02K-7247 by its driver-respondent No. 2 herein. After suffering the injuries, the respondent No. 1-claimant was shifted to Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Jammu where he remained admitted from 09.07.2010 to 19.08.2010. On account of the accident, respondent No. 1-claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40%.

3. As per the claim petition, respondent No. 1-claimant was a Denter by profession and he was running his business from a Khokha. He was earning an income of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 36,000/- per month from this business.

4. After holding an enquiry, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, as a result of which, respondent No. 1-claimant sustained injuries. Accordingly, he was awarded pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The details of the compensation awarded to respondent No. 1-claimant vide the impugned award are given as under:

5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal primarily on the ground that compensation awarded in favour of respondent No. 1-claimant is on higher side. According to the appellant-insurance company, the income of the claimant has been taken by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 10,000/- per month and without any income proof, the Tribunal was not justified in doing so.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and the record of the Tribunal. I have also considered the grounds of appeal.

7. Before coming to the question, whether the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of respondent No. 1-claimant on a higher side, it would be apt to notice the legal position as regards the principles which are required to be taken into consideration while assessing compensation in injury cases.

8. The basic judgment on the issue has been rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. 2011 (1) SCC 343. The Court in the said case has explained in the following terms the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability:

“General principles relating to compensation in injury cases:

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its cons