The main legal point established is that the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases should consider the impact of permanent disability on the claimant's earning capacity, and the percentage of permanent disability should not be equated with the percentage of loss of earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant (victim of accident) for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhanbad passed in MACT Case No. 04 of 2004, whereby and whereunder an award of Rs. 8,16,492/- along with simple interest @ 6 % per annum has been passed in favour of the claimant/appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. Shorn of unnecessary facts, the case of the claimant/appellant is that on 26.04.2003 at about 7 P.M., the claimant/appellant along with his friend was returning from Saraidhela to his village Hirapur by his scooter bearing Reg. No. BR-17C-7686 and reached near Police Line, Prem Chandra Nagar, meanwhile, a Maruti Car bearing Reg. No. WB-38L-4383 being driven in a rash and negligent manner coming from opposite direction dashed the scooty of the claimant/appellant, due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injury in his right leg. Thereafter, the claimant/appellant was sent to Central Hospital, Saraidhela, Dhanbad for his treatment, where he was treated from 26.04.2003 to 29.04.2003 and thereafter he was referred to Higher Centre of Orthopedic and admitted in Clinic at Bartand, Dhanbad from 29.04.2003 to 09.05.2003 and his operation was done on 30.04.2003 and imported steel rod was implanted in the right thigh with modern technology. It is further alleged that as per advice of doctor, the claimant/appellant was completely bed ridden and he was again admitted to Pandit Clinic from 19.10.2003 to 29.10.2003 for conducting bone grafting and since then, he is still bed ridden and his treatment is continuing. It is further alleged that the Officer-in-Charge registered a case bearing Saraidhela P.S. Case No.273 of 2003 under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the said Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.WB-38L-4383 and after usual investigation, the concerned investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the Rashmi Kumari, the driver of the said Maruti Car for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code. The claimant/appellant received severe injuries on his body and soft tissues due to this unfortunate road accident, he lost his capacity to move freely and became absolutely bed ridden and his treatment is still going on. The claimant/appellant is a practicing lawyer of civil/criminal and MACT has suffered huge pain, mental agony and huge loss of professional income which caused entire family into hardship. Therefore, the claimant filed this motor accident claim for compensation under Section 140 and 166 of M.V. Act for the compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Seventeen Lakhs).

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the monthly income of the appellant, who is a practicing lawyer at Dhanbad, District Court and he is also serving as panel lawyer in National Insurance Company since 11.09.1992 and proved his monthly income to be Rs. 14,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal has fixed Rs. 9,000/- per month without any plausible reasons. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has also failed to ascertain the compensation amount in accordance with settled principles of law, without proper consideration of the future prospect, mental pain and suffering and other conventional heads of compensation. As such the impugned award is fit to be set aside and the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation amount.

5. Per contra: learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that learned Tribunal has considered overall aspects of the case and rightly determined the compensation amount which suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference. It is further submitted that the calculation of the compensation