JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Notice upon the Arvind Kumar Agrawal, who is respondent in all the appeals being the owner is already effected, however nobody has appeared on behalf of the owner being Arvind Kumar Agrawal and the notice was received by self, as such this appeal is being heard in absence of Arvind Kumar Agrawal, who is the owner of the vehicle in question. 2. Heard, Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A. No.195 of 2017 and M.A. No.196 of 2017 which has been filed by the claimants and Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company in both the appeals. 3. Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, learned counsel has filed the appeal in M.A. No.577 of 2016 and M.A. No.580 of 2016 by the insurance company and Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the claimants in both the appeals. 4. M.A. No.195 of 2017 has been preferred by the claimants against the judgment dated 09.06.2016 passed in Claim Case No.31 of 2003 and M.A. No.196 of 2017 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 09.06.2016 arising out of the Claim Case No.21 of 2006 and both the cases have been decided together and the same award is challenged by the insurance company in M.A. No.577 of 2016 and M.A. No.580 of 2016. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimants submits that the learned Court has wrongly deducted the one third amount from the income and to buttress this argument he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar versus Ajay Kumar and Another reported in 2011 1 SCC 343. He further submits that under the head of pain and suffering only Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. He submits that meagre amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been provided as future prospect. On this ground, he submits that the said award may kindly be modified. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company opposes the prayer and submits that the Tribunal has found that the disability has not been proved before the Tribunal and even the bills and voucher of expenditure has not produced and the earning has been rightly calculated. He submits in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned order, so far the enhancement is concerned. 7. He submits in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned order, so far the enhancement is concerned. 7. He further submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly passed the award and fastened the liability upon the insurance company. He submits that the learned Court has not taken into consideration about the permit and driving license and the entire liability has been fastened upon the insurance company and in view of that the appeal preferred by the insurance company may kindly be allowed and the interest would be 6% in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 On this ground, he submits that the appeal preferred by the insurance company may kindly be allowed. 8. In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the trial court record as well as the impugned award. In paragraph No.23 of the judgment, the learned Tribunal has found that the claimants have not filed the certificate showing their percentage of disablement. They have also not filed the proof of bills and vouchers of expenditure made in their treatment but only some prescription and treatment attendance chart has been filed to show that they were treated for a prolonged period. Even the income has not been proved by way of any documentary evidence and in light of that the learned Court has awarded the compensation under head of future prospect as Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,000/- has been allowed as pain and sufferings and from the income one third amount has been directed to be recovered and interest has also been directed to be calculated. 9. 9. Thus, in view of the above finding, the Court finds that there is no illegality so far the calculation and award of the amount is concerned, however, the Court finds force with regard to the deduction of one third of the income in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar versus Ajay Kumar and Another (supra) on which the reliance has been placed by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as such that part of the award is modified to the effect that there will not be any deduction of one third of the income, as such the award dated 09.06.2016 is modified to the above extent. 10. So far the appeal of the insurance company is concerned, the Court finds that the insurance company has not been able to prove about the permit and driving license by way of cogent evidence before the learned Tribunal and if the issue was not framed, the appellant - insurance company was required to move before the competent court for framing of issue that has not been done by the insurance company and the meagre amount has been allowed in both the claim case. 11. So far the judgment relied by Mr. Jha, learned counsel in the case of Sarala Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (supra) is concerned that is with regard to the interest, the Court finds that the interest has been provided to the claimants with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application till the date of actual payment, however considering the meagre amount in a case of injury is provided, the contention of Mr. Jha with regard to the interest is not being accepted by the Court. 12. In view of the above M.A. No.577 of 2016 and M.A. No.580 of 2016 is hereby dismissed and M.A. No.195 of 2017 and M.A. No.196 of 2017 is hereby allowed to the effect that one third deduction will not be there from the income. As such M.A. No.195 of 2017 and M.A. No.196 of 2017 is hereby allowed in part and disposed of. 13. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company in M.A. No.577 of 2016 and M.A. No.580 of 2016 shall be transmitted back to the learned Court which will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants. 14. As such M.A. No.195 of 2017 and M.A. No.196 of 2017 is hereby allowed in part and disposed of. 13. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company in M.A. No.577 of 2016 and M.A. No.580 of 2016 shall be transmitted back to the learned Court which will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants. 14. Let the trial court record be sent back to the learned Court forth with.