JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI , J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-insurance company. 2. Notice upon respondent No. 2 has been validly served and he has not appeared and on 10.02.2025 with a view to provide one more opportunity to the respondent No. 2, the matter was adjourned. Today on repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of respondent No. 2, in view of that this appeal is being heard in absence of respondent No. 2. 3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment/award dated 27.01.2023, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 17 of 2018, by the learned Principal District-Judge-I-cum-P.O. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, whereby, award has been made in favour of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 3,23,188/- as compensation for 40% permanent disability suffered by the claimant in a motor accident with intertest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 4. Mr. S.K. Laik learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned tribunal has failed to give any finding to grant compensation with regard to future prospect and loss of future earning. He submits that on these two grounds, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. He further submits that compensation case was instituted stating that on 11.12.2016 the appellant along with others was returning Dhanbad from Patna by a Scorpio bearing registration No. JH-10-AH-6153 and when they reached at Gopaldih, Dumri, P.S. Bagodar, a Tank Lorry bearing registration No. WB-29-A-8945 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed against the Scorpio, due to which the injured sustained severe injuries in his left thigh, left hand, right eye and injuries on head and face also. The offending vehicle was insured with M/s United India Insurance Company Limited. He submits that in this background, the issues have been framed and the learned tribunal framed altogether seven issues to decide the claim and pursuant to that after appreciating the evidence and facts, he has been pleased to allow the compensation to the tune of Rs Rs. 3,23,188/- as compensation for 40% permanent disability suffered by the claimant in a motor accident with intertest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 6. 3,23,188/- as compensation for 40% permanent disability suffered by the claimant in a motor accident with intertest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on two grounds i.e. future prospect and loss of future earning, the learned court has failed to pass any award, which is against the mandate of law. He relied in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., (2022) 13 SCC 790 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paras-11 and 12 held as under:- “11. Yet later and more recently in an accident case, which tragically left in its wake a young girl in a lifelong state of paraplegia, this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 577, reiterated that in addition to loss of earnings, compensation for future prospects too could be factored in, and observed that : (SCC pp. 421-24, paras 14-17 & 20) “14. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, (1979) 4 SCC 365 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 996, this Court held : (SCC p. 366, Para 2) ‘2. … the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.’ 15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250, dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held thus : (SCC p. 556, para 9) ‘9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant : (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant : (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include : (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.’ 16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161, this Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries: (SCC p. 348, para 6) ‘6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.’ 17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638, this Court held as follows : (SCC p. 276, para 2) ‘2. … There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.’ *** Loss of earnings 20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs. 15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs. 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs. 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs. 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs. 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs. 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs. 14,66,000.” 12. In view of the above decisive rulings of this Court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% (following theNational Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205, principle).” 7. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% (following theNational Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205, principle).” 7. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the loss of future prospect and loss of future earning are based on determination of income is required to be added in the award. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further relied in the case of M/s National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sudeshwar Yadav & Anr., in M.A. No. 393 of 2007 , decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this court by the judgment dated 23.11.2021 and submits that in that case also, the aforementioned two heads have been added by the co-ordinate Bench in case of injury. On these grounds, he submits that the award of the learned tribunal may kindly be modified. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, insurance company has opposed the prayer and submits that P.W.-1 Bikram Singh has stated that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- by running a general store and at the time of accident his age was 33 years. He submits that P.W.-2 Prashant Kumar Gupta has stated that Bikram Singh has a general store, which is taken on rent and now he is running the general store, however, he has not seen any document regarding income. He submits that in view of that the income has not been proved before the learned tribunal. He further submits that what is the future loss, that has also not been established and that is the situation, in view of that the learned tribunal has passed the award. He further submits that the proof has not been made with regard to the loss in future earning, as the case relates to shortening of one of the leg. He submits that the compensation means just compensation and that is the spirit of the Motor Vehicles Act and he relied on two judgments, firstly in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhawa Devi & Ors., MANU/JH/0649/2004 and secondly in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Yogesh Devi & Ors., MANU/SC/0112/2012. 10. He submits that the compensation means just compensation and that is the spirit of the Motor Vehicles Act and he relied on two judgments, firstly in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhawa Devi & Ors., MANU/JH/0649/2004 and secondly in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Yogesh Devi & Ors., MANU/SC/0112/2012. 10. Relying on the above two judgments, he submits that the present case is fully covered, as such, no case of modification is made out and this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 11. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the future loss of earning and future prospect. The learned tribunal has passed the award considering the accident and there is finding of the learned tribunal of 40% of disability. P.W.-5 Dr. Vijay Pratap Sinha was examined on that aspect and he has proved the said disability and he was one of the member of the Medical Board, thus the 40% disability has been proved. Certainly the 40% disability is there, that has also been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company and it has been submitted that this is a case of shortening of leg, which clearly suggests that there is disability of 40% is there in the leg and if such a situation is there, it cannot be said that future earning is not lost and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (Supra) and in that case relying on the two cases, the judgment has been passed and it has been clearly held in para-12 that loss of future prospect and loss of future earning are required to be added in light of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 12. In view of the above ratio and in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (Supra), 40% future prospect is applicable to the age group of the claimant, who was 33 years of age at the time of accident and by way of 40%of annual loss of earning. 13. 12. In view of the above ratio and in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (Supra), 40% future prospect is applicable to the age group of the claimant, who was 33 years of age at the time of accident and by way of 40%of annual loss of earning. 13. Certainly in view of the fact that this is a case of shortening of leg, in view of that efficiency of any person cannot be 100%, as such, the loss of earning cannot be ruled out. As such, the argument of learned counsel appearing for the insurance company is not accepted by this court. 14. So far as the judgments relied by Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company in the cases of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhawa Devi & Ors. and in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Yogesh Devi & Ors. are concerned, that judgments have been decided in the year 2004 and 2012 respectively, wherein the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has been decided in the year 2017 and it is well settled that once the case is decided, the ratio will be applied retrospectively, as such, the judgments, relied by him is not helping the insurance company. 15. In view of the above, the tabular chart, pertaining to calculation, is being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- Head Amount Loss of earning power [Rs. 6890/- X 40% X 12 X 16] Rs. 5,29,152.00 Towards Future Prospects (40% addition) Rs. 2,11,660.00 Amount spent on treatment Rs. 1,52,518.00 Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000.00 Basic Amenities Rs. 20,000.00 Conveyance charges Rs. 10,000.00 Special Diet Rs. 20,000.00 Total Rs. 10,43,330.00 16. In view of the above, the two heads will be added in the award and shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till the actual realization of the claim amount. 17. If the award is not satisfied till date, the same will be satisfied within six weeks from today. 10,43,330.00 16. In view of the above, the two heads will be added in the award and shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till the actual realization of the claim amount. 17. If the award is not satisfied till date, the same will be satisfied within six weeks from today. However, if the award has already been satisfied by the insurance company, the modified award by this order will be satisfied, minusing the amount, which has already been paid and if it is not paid, the original award and the modified award, as modified by this order will be satisfied along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till the actual realization of the claim, within the aforesaid period. 18. With the above observation, this appeal is allowed and disposed of.