JUDGMENT :

Songkhupchung Serto, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Devnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and also heard Mr. B.N. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.3.2018 passed by the MACT, Dimapur in MAC Case No. 122/2016 wherein, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,83,600/- to the claimant/respondent.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-

On 17.4.2014 at around 9 PM, the respondent/claimant, while he was riding on a Motorcycle was knocked down by a truck bearing registration No. AS/C-3624 driven by the respondent No. 2 at Khelmati Lakhimpur. After the accident the respondent was taken to hospital namely, North Lakhimpur hospital and thereafter to Hayat Hospital at Guwahati where he was treated from 18.4.2014 to 27.4.2014. Being aggrieved by the injuries and the disabilities suffered, the respondent No. 1/claimant herein filed a claim case under the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Tribunal at Dimapur praying for adequate compensation to be given for the" injuries and disability suffered by him which is claimed to be 55%. The learned Tribunal after taking the evidence and hearing the parties came to a finding that the claimant/respondent suffered injuries and disabilities due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said truck which was insured with the appellant company herein and awarded the amount mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, the appellant who is the Insurance Company has come before this Court by filing this appeal.

4. The grounds of appeal as submitted by Mr. B. Devnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant are as follows:-

(i) That in a claim case under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the first and foremost duty of the claimant is to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle but in this case there was no evidence showing rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and there was no police report to support the case of the claimant

(ii) That the medical certificate was issued by a Doctor who did not treat the claimant/respondent Mr. Devnath submitted that as per the report the claimant/respondent was treated at Lakhimpur Civil Hospital and Hayat Hospital at Guwahati but the Doctor who issued the certificate is from Dimapur therefore, this clearly shows that the certificate was not issued by a person who ought to have issued the same.

(iii) That the eye witness who was examined before the learned Tribunal was a lady therefore it is doubtful that she would have ventured out on the street at that time of the night to witness such an incident. Therefore, the evidence given by her cannot be trusted and relied upon.

(iv) That the learned Tribunal did not examine the facts and circumstances of the case properly and also did not even try to find out if there was contributory negligence on the part of the respondents. In support of his submissions, Mr. B. Devnath, referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chinnamma Joys & Ors. with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chinnamma Joys & Ors reported in AIR 2013 SC 2293, paragraph 24. The contents of paragraph 24 referred to is reproduced here below:-

"24. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct