The impact of permanent disability on earning capacity and the principle of providing just compensation to place the claimant in the same position as before the accident are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Yogendra Prasad learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. Aggrieved with award dated 21.09.2015 passed by the learned District Judge-1-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Case No. 06 of 2013, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of awarded amount.

3. Compensation Case was instituted by the appellant for grant of compensation on account of disability of appellant arising out of use of motor vehicle. Prayer was also made for grant of just and fair compensation for Rs. 19,49,563/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization.

4. Learned tribunal after hearing the parties has been pleased to direct the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 9,70,853/- to the claimant/appellant within one month from the date of the award failing which the insurance company shall be liable for penal interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till realization.

5. Mr. Arwind Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was running a garage for repair of vehicle on a licence issued by the Government of Bihar. He submits that appellant has led evidence before the learned tribunal that he was earning Rs. 18,000/- to 20,000/- per month however the learned tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs. 3,900/- per month. He further submits that future prospect has not been provided and on these grounds there is requirement of enhancement of the awarded amount on account of income as evidence to that effect has been led. He submits that interest has been provided from the date of award which is against the mandate of law which is required to be provided from the date of filing of the application.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Insurance Company submits that the learned tribunal has rightly calculated the income and has passed the award. There is no requirement of enhancement of the awarded amount. He submits that there are several judgments and in such a situation the case filed for enhancement of the amount is lacking merit and this appeal may be dismissed.

7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the court has gone through the impugned award as well as L.C.R. and finds that the learned tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 3,900/- per month. The court finds that Exhibit 4 and 5 are the document which suggests that the appellant was having licence for repairing of vehicle issued by the Government of Bihar. One of the witness examined by the appellant stated that Sharma Garage used to pay 150/- per day payment to the skilled mechanic. Thus it is crystal clear that the garage of which the appellant was the owner and skilled workers were being paid Rs. 150/- per day except for the day the garage remained closed. The appellant has stated before the tribunal that he was earning a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to 20,000/-. When the appellant was paying Rs. 150/- per day to the skilled worker the same amount cannot be said to be earned by the appellant who was the owner of the garage in question. This fact fortified in view of exhibit 4 and 5 which is the certificate of registration issued by the Government of Bihar and the licence issued by Inspector of Industries for running small scale industries.

8. Admittedly, disability has been found to be 40% due to such disability he has not been able to work like a common man and due to that efficiency to work has been reduced. Further considering the statement that he was earning to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- to 20,000/- the Court comes to the conclusion that accident is of the year, 2009 monthly income of the appellant should be Rs. 12,000/- per month and accordingly, the award is modified to that effect.

9. In the case of Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar and Another 2011 (1) SCC 343 the Hon’