JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this Appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 2/1/2017 in Claim Petition No.17/2011 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Margao (Tribunal).

3. The Tribunal, by the impugned Judgment and Award, has dismissed the Appellant's claim petition against Respondent No.3-Insurance Company. The Tribunal determined the compensation payable by Respondents No.1 and 2 to the Appellant at ?2,60,000/ -but ultimately awarded the Appellant only ?1,30,000/-, after holing that the Appellant contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%.

4. Mr. Redkar learned Counsel for the Appellant-Claimant submitted that the insured vehicle's driver admittedly had a license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). Therefore, applying the law in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Miss. Endreshia Ashiana Fernandes and ors., FA No.96/2017 decided on 06.05.2022 that there was no breach of the insurance policy, and the Insurance Company could not have been exonerated in the matter. He also referred to the decision in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2017) 15 SCC 663 and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi and ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 287 in support of his contentions.

5. Mr. Redkar submitted that the contributory negligence finding is improper and warrants inference. He submits that the evidence on record does not support the theory of contributory negligence; therefore, such a plea was never raised by any of the Respondents. He submits that the rickshaw driver did not even examine himself when an FIR was lodged against him, alleging rash and negligent driving.

6. Finally, Mr. Redkar submitted that the compensation amounts awarded by the Tribunal are too inadequate. He submitted that the Appellant ignored the permanent disability medically certified at 40%. He presents that the functional disability is almost 100%. He explains that because of the disability, the Appellant was denied an extension of 5 years. He submits that because of such disability, the Appellants' prospects of getting employment in the Merchant Navy were marginalized. He proposes that for all these reasons, the compensation of at least ?21,24,979/- was due and payable to the Appellant.

7. Mr. Redkar submitted that the compensation of almost ?50,000/- for future medical expenses, ?3,00,000/- for pain and suffering, and ?50,000/- for loss of amenities was due and payable. He submits that the Tribunal should have awarded at least ?15,000/- towards transportation and a further ?15,000/-towards special diet.

8. Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, defended the impugned Award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that this was a clear case of contributory negligence. He offered that the claim towards future prospectus was entirely hypothetical. He submitted that even the testimony of Shailesh Kumar Ray (CW.6) inspired no confidence and was correctly rejected by the Tribunal. He submitted that Dr. S.M. Bandekar (CW.5) had deposed that the Appellant would have no problem driving, walking, sitting cross-legged, lifting heavy objects, and doing all other activities except running. He submitted that the Appellant was not candid to the Tribunal and has suppressed material evidence. Mr. Kakodkar submitted that there was no clear evidence about the rickshaw driver's license to drive a light motor vehicle.

9. Without prejudice, Mr. Kakodkar submitted that since the insurance policy required the driver to have a specified license, an order for pay and recovery could be made. Accordingly, Mr. Kakodkar submitted that this Appeal may be dismissed for all these reasons.

10. Rival contentions now fall for determination.

11. On the first aspect of exoneration of the insurance company, Mr. Redkar is on a firm wicket regarding the law laid down in Mukund Dewangan (supra) and Rambha Devi (supra). Both the decisions considered in Miss. Endreshia Ashiana Fernandes (supra) held t