The court established the admissibility of a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, despite the claimant's annual income exceeding the specified limit of Rs. 40,000.

P.K. Musahary, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.7.2004 passed by the Member, MACT, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 119/2002 awarding a sum of Rs. 11,38,409/- as compensation to the claimant with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till realization from the opposite party No. 2, M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. There was a further direction to deposit the said amount in cash or by way of account payee demand draft or cheque in favour of the claimant to the Member, MACT, Mizoram for disbursement to the claimant within one month from 23.7.2004 i.e. the date of award. The opposite party, Insurance Company was granted liberty to deduct any interim award, if already satisfied. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the claimant, B.L. Rochhunga, aged about 27 years, s/o Lalzova, resident of Aizawl, Mizoram suffered from paralysis below neck resulting to 100% permanent disablement due to motor vehicle accident that took place on 16.12.2000 near Aibawk Village involving a Jeep bearing registration No. ML-04-2230 which belongs to his father Lalzova, opposite party No. 1 and driven by one John Lalramnghaka, who had a valid driving licence upto 30.4.2003. Shri B.L. Rochhunga was admitted to Civil Hospital, Aizawl on 16.12.2000 and he was under treatment till the filing of claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 10.12.2002. The claimant is working as a Store Keeper in the Directorate of Food and Civil Supplies Department under the Government of Mizoram and he was earning Rs. 6,873/- per month and claims the maximum amount of compensation under the relevant laws for 100% permanent disablement suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident.

3. The opposite party No. 1 who is none but the claimant's father filed no written statement. The appellant opposite party No. 2 M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. filed written statement questioning the maintainability of the claim petition and denying its liability. It is stated in the written statement that the claim was highly exaggerated and baseless as the claimant did not suffer any loss of income as he had been receiving his monthly salary from the Government Department concerned and the police report dated 7.11.2002 submitted after a lapse of long about 2 years which does not show the cause of accident was highly doubtful. The appellant/opposite party/Insurance Company also denied that the claimant suffered from any grievous injury resulting into permanent disablement inasmuch as the medical certificate enclosed with the claim petition was fabricated and unreliable. Besides, the accident vehicle, as stated in the written statement was being used as a maxi cab and it was hired by the claimant and other passengers in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy of the accident vehicle and the appellant Insurance Company's liability is subject to the scope of the insurance policy issued in favour of the owner of the vehicle, validity of the insurance policy and vehicular documents such as registration certificate, fitness certificate, permit and driving licence of the driver at the time of accident and the claim is vague and incomplete in its material particulars as it does not include the aforesaid necessary documents.

4. The learned Tribunal framed only two issues namely :

(1) Whether the claim petition is maintainable or not.

(2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation and if so, who is liable to pay the same and to what extent.

5. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellant and also Mrs. Helen Dawngliani for the respondent No. 1.

6. The first and main submission of Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the claimant failed to adduce any medical certificate supporting his case that he su