PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.

1. By this instant appeal, appellant/claimant (injured) assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned award dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.102/2009, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application filed by appellant/claimant and awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as total compensation on account of loss of one eye in a motor accident.

2. Brief facts for disposal of this appeal, are that, on 11.06.2009, at 11.30 AM, the appellant/claimant was coming from Tamnar to Raigarh along with his relative Raghuvar Kalate by motorcycle when they reached near Jhingol turning at that relevant time, one jeep i.e. Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. CG13/C/3281 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') dashed the motorcycle on which the appellant/claimant. In the said accident, appellant/claimant sustained injuries over his right forehead and right eye along with other parts of the body. Appellant/claimant was admitted to Kirodimal Government District Hospital, Raigarh and he took treatment continuously for several days. During course of treatment, his right eye was removed. Due to the accidental injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, he could not continue on his work for several months. His face also became disfigured.

3. On matter being reported, a criminal case was registered against respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

4. Due to the aforesaid injuries sustained by appellant/claimant, he filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') before the competent Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 24,33,200/- in total as compensation on all heads.

5. Respondents No. 1 who is driver of the offending vehicle, even after service of notice, did not choose to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal and remained ex parte.

6. Respondent No. 2 who is owner of the offending vehicle denied the fact of accident as well as all claims made in the claim application and pleaded for dismissal of the claim application.

7. Respondent No. 3/insurance company denied all the claims made by the appellant/claimant as also the fact adverse to it. It has been pleaded that no accident occurred from the vehicle insured by it. It has been further pleaded that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. It has been further pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was running in violation of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is having no liability to pay the amount of compensation, if any, awarded by learned Claims Tribunal.

8. After considering the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, learned Claims Tribunal arrived at a finding that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal has also given specific finding that there was no evidence with respect to the violation of conditions of the insurance policy and held the insurance company liable for payment of a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant on all heads.

9. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/claimant submitted that learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any amount of compensation by applying the multiplier system. He further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has also not considered that the appellant/claimant sustained permanent physical disability as the right eye of the appellant/claimant was removed in the motor accident. He further submitted that the appellant/claimant was not able to perform his duties as he was doing earlier. He lastly submitted that the learned