JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. P Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Insurance Company and Mr. B Borah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The present appeal is preferred by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 23.02.2018 passed in MAC Case No. 1431/2014 being aggrieved by the quantum of award. The Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the aforesaid judgment nor any cross-objection has been filed in the present proceeding.

3. The brief facts, which are necessary for determination of the present appeal can be summarized as follows:

I. The claimant, Dhan Bahadur Thapa, who is the father of the injured victim, filed the claim petition on account of injury sustained by his minor daughter, Rushi Thapa in a road transport accident occurred on 13.04.2013 at about 10 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of a Maxx Pick Up Van bearing registration No. As-01 CC-3349.

II. The owner of the vehicle i.e. OP No. 2 contested the claim by filing written statement and claimed that the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No. 1 Insurance Company and was driven by a driver having valid driving license.

III. However, it is disputed by the said opposite party that occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver.

IV. The driver also took the similar stand before the learned Tribunal by filing written statement.

V. The claimant examined two witnesses, including the doctor, who issued the disability certificate in respect of the injured and exhibited the disability certificate.

VI. The Insurance Company adduced two witnesses. However, the owner and driver though filed written statement had not laid any evidence to prove their pleadings.

VII. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal held that the daughter of the claimant sustained injuries in the alleged accident dated 13.04.2013 involving vehicle No. As-01 CC-3349 and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

VIII. Thereafter, the learned court below while dealing with the quantum of compensation held that the injured sustained disability to the extent of 50% for her whole life and awarded the following amount compensation :

4. Submission on behalf of the appellant:

Ms. P Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that:

I. The Doctor, who examined the status of disability of the injured and issued the certificate was duly examined and the disability certificate was duly proved.

II. The said disability certificate discloses that the injured suffered 75 % permanent physical impairment in relation to her left upper and lower limb and the said signatory had duly deposed before the Tribunal and exhibited the certificate as well as the signature. Her evidence remained unshaken.

III. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought not to have discarded the concluded 75 % permanent physical impairment in relation to her left upper and lower limb only on the ground that during the cross-examination, the said doctor had deposed that there is possibility of developing her condition provided undergoing vigorous physiotherapy and accordingly, ought not have reduced the disability. The said doctor is not an expert to suggest about physiotherapy and she came to the witness box only to prove the certificate issued by her and her signature. Therefore, such fact ought to have been ignored by the learned court below inasmuch as such deposition is having no relevant to the determination of the disability.

IV. Ms. Bhattacharya further submits that the learned court below has also failed to consider the future prospect of the victim as she became permanently disabled inasmuch as in view of the settled proposition of law, the notional income ought to have been considered by the learned Tribunal below and the