B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. If the records and judgment passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram in MACT Case No. 81 of 2002 is considered to be an indicator, I have no hesitation to take a view that all is not well in the said office and the claim applications are being disposed of in a perfunctory and slipshod manner and awards are being passed at whims of the Presiding Officer.

2. In the case in hand the Insurance Company is challenging the judgment and award dated 2.9.2004 passed by Sri L. Khobung, learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram in MACT Case No. 81 of 2002 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,06,587 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the claimant/respondent No. 1, allegedly for sustaining injury in the nature of permanent disablement. Being aggrieved with the quantum of sentence and its liability the insurance company is challenging the impugned award.

3. I have heard Shri Ricky Gurung, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri S. Sailo, learned Counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1. The owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No. 2) has not appeared despite being notified. In fact, the owner also did not contest the claim case before the Tribunal. I have perused the impugned judgment, pleadings of both the parties and oral and documentary evidence proffered on behalf of the claimant in the Tribunal.

4. Facts necessary for deciding this appeal are as follows:

The claimant's case in the Tribunal was that while he was travelling in an auto rickshaw with five others, a truck bearing registration No. MZ-04-0343 dashed the said auto rickshaw causing physical injuries to the passengers of the said auto rickshaw. As could be gathered from the records some of the passengers of the auto rickshaw died and the respondent No. 1 sustained injury on his lower limb and ultimately the lower limb (left) became non-functional due to paralysis. It was also the case of claimant that at the relevant time he was doing the job of carpentry, having monthly income of Rs. 6,200 and due to paralysis of his left limb he could not continue with the aforesaid vocation. On these facts a sum of Rs. 11,97,987 was claimed.

5. In order to establish the fact of accident, income, pecuniary loss to the dependents, etc., the claimant himself did not come to the court to examine himself as a witness. On his behalf a distant relative adduced oral evidence on the basis of power of attorney. In addition to that an Ex-Village Council President was tendered as C.W.2 and one Police Officer was also examined to prove the police report. To establish the fact of permanent disablement only a medical certificate, issued by Dr. Lalnunthari, M.& H.O. of Champhai Hospital, was filed in the court and the said document has been marked as Ext. C-4. Other documentary evidence includes age certificate of the claimant, GD Entry of the accident, income certificate issued by the VCP, medicine vouchers, discharge certificate from the hospital. Insurance Policy and vehicular documents.

6. The case was contested by the Insurance Company, taking all possible objections, including technical objections regarding maintainability of the case, non-joinder of necessary parties, driving of truck and auto rickshaw without valid driving licences, composite negligence, gravity of injury and the amount of compensation, etc. However, no counter evidence was adduced by the insurance company. Hence, on the basis of the claimant's evidence a sum of Rs. 10,06,587 has been awarded.

7. From the impugned judgment it appears that the Tribunal has accepted monthly income of Rs. 5,200, instead of Rs. 6,200 per month, as pleaded in the claim petition and adopting multiplier of 16 and 100% disability, the aforesaid amount has been calculated.

8. Before adverting to the sustainability to the amount of award, I would like to first deal with the procedural lapses in cond