ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Claim Tribunal in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 40 of 2004 on 31.05.2013. 3. The case of the claimant/appellant is that when the claimant was going to Asansol from Bokaro on a Maruti Car bearing No. WB56-3101, at about 1.30 A.M., while they happened to reach near Thikana Hotel at village Kharkabad on G.T. Road, a truck bearing No. JH11A-0790, coming from the opposite side entered into the wrong lane, dashed the Maruti Car, as a result of which, one of the occupants namely, Mangal Prasad has died on the spot and the claimant-Shiv Chandra Singh and others sustained serious injuries. The present claimant/appellant was taken to Bokaro General Hospital where it was found that his right leg was fractured, which was operated upon on 22.12.2002 at Bokaro General Hospital. 4. As per the medical certificate, it is evident that the claimant has suffered 60% permanent disablement in his right leg, which has shorten by 3”. The claimant has further asserted that he was 35 years old at the time of accident. 5. The Claim Tribunal, after taking into consideration the evidence and other things, has framed various issues and ultimately awarded Rs.2,48,800/- with 6% interest to the claimant/appellant. While calculating the quantum of compensation, the Claim Tribunal has found that although there is 60% physical disability, but so far loss of business is concerned, it has been assessed 30% only. Thus, his loss of earning has been considered as 30%, although permanent disability is 60%. No reasoning has been assigned as to why loss of earning is only 30%. 6. Counsel for the appellant although before this Court has raised three issues, but in course of the argument, he is confining his argument only with respect to loss of earning. 7. So far as compensation given under the different heads is concerned, that has not been challenged by the counsel for the appellant. Thus, other findings given by the Claim Tribunal remains unchallenged and has been accepted by both the parties. 8. Accordingly, this Court accepts the same and on that basis, further calculation will be made. 7. So far as compensation given under the different heads is concerned, that has not been challenged by the counsel for the appellant. Thus, other findings given by the Claim Tribunal remains unchallenged and has been accepted by both the parties. 8. Accordingly, this Court accepts the same and on that basis, further calculation will be made. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Claim Tribunal has considered his income as Rs.3000/- per month, as there was no evidence, regarding his income. It has further been argued that this is a minimum income and it has to be considered, as per the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant argues that as the income of Rs.3000/- has been taken into account, it means that the income of the deceased is solely depend upon his physical labour, as it is income of daily wagers. Once his income has been taken as a daily wager, then his physical disablement is directly related to earning capacity. 10. Since his permanent disability of 60% has been accepted by the court below, is not in dispute, in that view of the matter, the Claim Tribunal has committed an error in reducing loss of earning to 30%, without assigning any reason. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the plea taken by the appellant. Learned counsel, in this regard, has relied upon the judgment reported in (2011)1 Supreme Court Cases 343 (Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another) wherein their Lordships in paras-10, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19 has as under:- 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he 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 continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular, the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to “hold an enquiry into the claim” for determining the “just compensation”. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to “hold an enquiry into the claim” for determining the “just compensation”. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the “just compensation”. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a medical dictionary and a handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example, Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopaedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorised texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the First Schedule to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. 17. If a doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor’s opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and, if so, the percentage. 18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give “ready to use” disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily give liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or discharge certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of the claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local hospitals/medical colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 12. It has been argued by the counsel for the Insurance Company that loss of earning and permanent disability are two different things. The extend of permanent disability will not always be same as loss of earning. 13. 12. It has been argued by the counsel for the Insurance Company that loss of earning and permanent disability are two different things. The extend of permanent disability will not always be same as loss of earning. 13. Counsel for the Insurance Company is right in saying so that loss of earning and permanent disability will not always be the same, but here in this case, situation is different and physical disability is only factor. So far as earning is concerned, it depends upon so many factors, the physical capacity is one of the factor. 14. So far as present case is concerned, it is admitted position that the income of the appellant has been assessed as Rs.3000/- per month, which is a minimum wages to a labourer. 15. As the appellant has been treated as a Labourer, loss of earning will have direct relationship with the physical disablement, which is locomotive in nature. In the case of labourer, in fact, loss of earning will be more than physical disability (if locomotive). Physical disability of 60% can result in loss of 100% earning. 16. Thus, claimant has suffered locomotive physical disability and this has direct bearing upon his earning capacity. 17. In fact, loss of earning of the claimant may be more than 90%, but, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), has directed to take assistance from the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. 18. Taking help from the said Act and in the interest of justice, I hold that the loss of earning to the petitioner be treated as 60%. Accordingly, calculation has been made and it has been shown to both the parties and they have agreed to it. 19. So far as final compensation amount is concerned, which has been calculated on the basis of 60% loss of earning and it comes to Rs.4,21,600/-. 20. It has been admitted by the counsel for the appellant that Rs.2,48,800/- has already been paid to the appellant. This amount has to be deducted from the amount of compensation arrived at by this Court. 21. Accordingly, now amount payable to the appellant, will be Rs.1,72,800/-. This enhanced amount of compensation will be paid along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the present appeal. 22. The award dated 31.05.2013 is modified to the extent as indicated above. 23. 21. Accordingly, now amount payable to the appellant, will be Rs.1,72,800/-. This enhanced amount of compensation will be paid along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the present appeal. 22. The award dated 31.05.2013 is modified to the extent as indicated above. 23. With above modification, present appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.