The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper assessment of compensation for personal injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the requirement for sufficient evidence to support the claimant's loss of income and permanent disability.

JUDGMENT

M S Jawalkar, J. - Heard Mr. E. Afonso, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. P. Kakokdar, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 (claimant).

2. The present revision application is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.06.2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji, Goa, in Claim Petition No. 69 of 2010.

3. The learned Advocate for revision applicant Mr. E. Afonso, submitted that before the Tribunal, the claim of the petitioner was under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and he claimed an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- for personal injuries in motor accident on 06.11.2008 involving motorcycle bearing no. GA 03/F 5964 belonging to the respondent no.1 and Van bearing no. GA 01/Z 0404, driven by respondent no.2, owned by respondent no.3 and insured with the applicant-Company. The driver and the owner of the van did not contest the claim and Tribunal proceeded exparte against them. It is also matter of record that the applicantinsurance company, did not apply to defend the petition under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, (Act, for brevity). The learned Tribunal awarded amount of compensation of Rs. 7,70,000/- with 9% interest to be paid jointly and severally to the petitioner and the respondent nos.2 and 3, (driver and owner).

4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for appellant that in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Shila Datta & Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 509 , which is a three Judges Bench, constituted for interpretation of Section 170 and 149 of the Act however having taken a different view on interpretation, the matter was referred to a larger bench of five Judges. The real issue was that when owner and driver remained absent in collusion with the claimant, whether the insurance company required to obtain permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to defend the petition on all grounds available to the driver and owner of the vehicle. Failing which, the appeal under Section 173 of the Act by the insurer is not maintainable. As there is no appeal maintainable by the insurer, a revision petition is maintainable.

5. The learned Counsel also relied on the citation in the case of Sadhana Lodh vs National Insurance Company Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524 . So also he relied on judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Panaji, in First Appeal no. 104 of 2001 in the case of New India Assurance Ltd., vs. Veerapanaidu & Ors., wherein it is held that the revision is not barred by the said legislation.

6. Learned Advocate for respondent no.1-claimant fairly accepts this position of law that revision is maintainable. However, it is submitted that the scope of revision is limited as against the scope of appeal. Thus, I will proceed with the admitted position of law that revision is maintainable.

7. I have called for the records and proceedings of the Claim Petition no.69 of 2010 for perusal. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Accident Claims Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award, exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally with material irregularity. It is totally erred in holding Rs. 1,14,400/- as annual income of respondent no.1 (claimant) for assessing the compensation by compounding 10% every year. It failed to appreciate that there was no question of increasing the salary by compounding the same by 10% every year for loss of future prospects. It also erred in holding 45% permanent disability while assessing the compensation and awarding huge compensation. It needs to be considered by the learned Tribunal that the 45% disability is of one limb and it was not of whole body.

8. Learned Counsel relied on the citation in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that in disability certificate, the extent of disability of a limb (or part