Point of Law: In view the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the fact that he was under constant treatment, he would definitely needed an attendant to look after him and the claimant is therefore entitled to attendant charges.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 04.09.2013 in MAC Case No. 417/2009 passed by learned Member, MACT, Goalpara. The respondent No. 1 in this appeal is the claimant.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 09.03.2009 at about 7:00 A.M. while the claimant/respondent No. 1 Wahidul Islam was going towards Goalpara Civil Hospital on foot from Bapuji Nagar, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-18A/2814 (Truck) in front of the office of DTO, Goalpara. Due to the alleged accident, he sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was immediately taken to Goalpara Civil Hospital. Subsequently, he took treatment at Life Care Hospital and Research Co-operative Society, Goalpara. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered Commutated fracture of right Tibia and both bones of left legs and multiple injuries all over his bodies. The vehicle in question was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. at the relevant time of accident. Subsequently, the claimant attended the District Standing Medical Board and extent of damage sustained by him as a result of the accident was assessed by the Board and it was assessed that he suffered about 60% permanent disability.

3. After completion of trial, learned Tribunal has agreed with the assessment report of the Medical Board on disability of the claimant as 60% and also income of the injured as Rs. 9,000 at the time of accident as vegetable vendor and calculated the award of compensation on different heads amounting to Rs. 10,72,757/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand and Seven Hundred Fifty-Seven) only in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1.

4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal with a prayer to reduce the amount of compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no loss of future income as a result of injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. He was a vegetable vendor. For proving the loss of future earning capacity, the claimant should have produced the document to show that there was reduction in his income after the occurrence of accident. If really the injuries that he suffered affected his earning capacity and thereby there was reduction in his income in the years subsequent to accident, he should have produced medical documents of subsequent years. The burden was on the claimant to prove loss of earning capacity. It is also submitted that the Tribunal should have drawn adverse inference. Learned counsel have also pointed out that nature of injuries sustained by the claimant did not affect his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not have granted any amount towards loss of future earning capacity.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that in absence of prove of income, the learned Tribunal committed a series error in law in accepting Rs. 9,000/- as income of the respondent No. 1/claimant while assessing future loss of income in the instant case. The learned Tribunal ought to have followed the 2nd schedule which provides for notional income in such a situation such irregularities have vitiated the impugned judgment and award and accordingly, the same is liable to be interfered. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case laws:

(i) Syed Sadiq and Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735

(ii) Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343

7. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appeal should be allowed and quantum of compensation be reduced by awarding certain amounts towards loss of amenities, medical expenses, pain and sufferings and attendant’s charges.

8. On the contrary, learned counsel for t