Heard Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25-01-2010 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 2-cum-Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati in connection with MAC Case No. 276/2005 awarding compensation of Rs. 30,400/- on account of medical expenses, pain & suffering, loss of amenities of life and other miscellaneous expenses suffered by the claimant Arun Das due to the accident that has occurred on 11-12-2003. In this appeal the claimant is seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

3. The claimant Arun Das was knocked down by an Omni bus bearing registration number AS-01/J-1554 on 11-12-2003 at about 01:30 p.m. when he was standing by the side of the road at Ahatguri. As a result of the said accident the claimant claims to have suffered fracture on his right leg and right hand besides grievous injury in the head, back bone and other parts of the body which has resulted into permanent disability to the extent of 40%. It is also the claim of the claimant that at the time when the accident took place the claimant was a 9 years old school going boy and as such an amount of Rs. 5,10,000/- has been claimed by way of compensation.

4. Besides the respondent/ Insurance Company none of the opposite parties contested the case. Based on the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal had framed as many as four issues for trial which are as follows:

1. Whether the accident toll place due to negligent driving of the vehicle No. AS-01/J-1554?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, from whom it is recoverable?

3. What will be the just and proper compensation?

4. Is the claimant entitled to any other relief?

5. Based on the evidence available on record the Tribunal had answered issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant by holding that the accident had accrued due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing number AS-01/J-1554. Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were taken up together for discussions and decisions whereby it was held by the learned Tribunal that the claimant would be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 30,400/- on account of medical expenses, pain suffered loss of amenities of life and other miscellaneous expenses. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the certificate issued by the Doctor (PW-3) showing 40% disability incurred by the claimant by holding that there was nothing in the certificate to indicate that the disability is of permanent nature. On the basis of such findings, the learned Tribunal had rejected the claim for compensation made by the claimant on account of permanent disability allegedly suffered by him.

6. Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the bulk of evidence in the form of medical vouchers, prescriptions and other documents available on record as well as the testimony of PW-3 Doctor, it was apparent that the claimant had suffered 40% permanent disability. Since it is a case of 9 years old school going boy hence, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the claim of the appellant more liberally and sympathetically and awarded a just compensation on account of permanent disability suffered by the claimant besides awarding further amount for future treatment.

7. Resisting the aforesaid arguments, Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/ Insurance Company submits that the certificate issued by the Doctor i.e. Exhibit-3 mentions that the claimant has suffered 40% disability. However, it is no where mentioned in the certificate that the disability is of permanent nature. Such being the position the learned Tribunal, according to Mr. Dutta, had rightly rejected the claim for compensation on the head of permanent disability. Mr. Dutta further submits that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fa