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. 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’ble Supreme Court has held that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of the permanent disability on his earning capacity. 9. In the case of Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar and Another 2011 (1) SCC 343 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of the permanent disability on his earning capacity. In para 10 and 11 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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. 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. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.4 and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.)” 10. The appellant/claimant has suffered post graumatic non union of the right lower limb with limitation of movement at right knee and right ankle with gross shorting of limb. 11. The appellant/claimant is not a salaried person and he was self-employed who manages his own business. He is definitely required to move around. The appellant can also not drive on his own which hinders his mobility. This proves that the functional disability of the appellant will severely impact his earning capacity and 40% functional disability accepted by the learned tribunal. 12. Thus, it is well settled that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income but also future prospects and in many cases it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court that just compensation must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant as he was before the accident took place. In the case of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 the applicable 10% addition of future prospects was given compensation considering the age of 60 years of the appellant. 13. Accordingly, monthly income of the appellant is directed to be fixed to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month, in future prosecution 10% to be added in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra). The interest is required to be given with effect from filing of the claim application whereas it was granted w.e.f. date of award which is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, interest shall be provided from the date of filing of the application. Accordingly, award is modified. 14. The difference of amount in terms of present order shall be released in favour of the appellant within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. This appeal is disposed of. Pending, I.A, if any, stands, disposed of. 16. Let L.C.R. be transmitted back to the learned court concerned forthwith.