Paran Kumar Phukan, J.

These two appeals, one preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation (MAC Appeal 140/2009) and the other filed by the Insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (MAC Appeal No. 16 of 2009) for reduction of the same, are directed against the judgment and award dated 15.10.2008 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 358/2001. Common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals and as such are taken up together for discussion and decision for the sake of convenience and brevity. The parties herein are referred to as claimant and insurer.

2. There is no dispute regarding the factum of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident which occurred on 28.03.2000 on the National Highway 31 near GMC Gate, Amingaon involving Vehicle No. AS 01/B-6524 (Bus) and Vehicle bearing No. AS-25/B-2200 (Santro Car) which were insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

3. Only the owner and driver of the Santro Car along with the insurer of both the vehicles contested the case before the Tribunal and the case proceeded ex-parte against the driver and the owner of the bus involved in the accident.

4. The learned Member of the Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence, adduced by the claimant, came to the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus by the driver and accordingly directed the insurer to pay compensation. The accident taking place due to rash driving of the bus has not been seriously disputed. Moreover from the evidence of the claimant and the Accident Information Report, Ext. 14, it is evident that the bus dashed the Santro Car on the driver's side of the car and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. No contrary evidence has been adduced to negate the version of the claimant and his version appears to be truthful and acceptable and accordingly the insurer of the bus is liable to indemnify the claimant.

5. Now the pertinent question is how much compensation the claimant is entitled to considering the nature of the injuries sustained by him. The learned Member of the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,24,000/- for future loss of income and earning capacity, Rs. 73,000/- for physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life, Rs. 46,000/- for pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 1,57,000/- for medical treatment.

6. Heard Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant and Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

7. Mr. B. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate in comparison to the nature of the disabilities suffered by the claimant. According to him there was total loss of vision of both the eyes and apart from that there was slowness of all movement and disability should have been assessed accordingly. He also submits that no amount has been awarded towards future medical treatment and the amounts granted for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life was too low considering the permanent disability suffered by the claimant.

8. In controversion, Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the insurer submits that the loss of vision of the left eye at the time of initial examination was 50% and as such there was virtually no loss of income as the claimant could continue his flower decoration business as usual and his injuries did not impact his income.

9. From the records it is found that vide order dated 20.01.2015 this Court directed the Tribunal to allow the parties to adduce additional evidence and the matter was remanded to enable the claimant to examine the Doctor who examined him subsequently. Accordingly after remand of the case two doctors were examined. One of them is Dr. Pa