JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Member, MACT No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati vide Judgment and Award, dated 21.06.2018 in MAC Case No. 311/2016.

3. The case of the claimant/appellant, in brief, is that on 30.11.2014 at about 8.15 p.m., while her son along with his friend was travelling on a motorbike, in front of Hanuman Mandir, Uzan Bazar, under Latasil P.S., they were knocked down by another motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01/BA-5848, which was driven in a very high speed. As a result of the accident, the victim was thrown to some distance and his head hit the footpath of the road, for which, he sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was immediately taken to Arya Hospital, Ulubari, Guwahati by 108 ambulance service in critical condition for treatment.

4. The claimant/appellant filed MAC Case No. 311/16 before the Tribunal of learned Member, MACT No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati claiming compensation for an amount of Rs.37,47,752/-(Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Two) only for the injuries sustained by her son, namely Sri Prabir Barman.

5. Upon consideration of the averments made in the pleadings of both the sides, the learned Tribunal formulated the following issues to arrive at a decision on just compensation to be awarded-

“1. Whether claimant, Sri Prabir Barman, sustained injuries in the alleged road accident dated 30.11.14 involving vehicle no. AS-01/BA-5848 and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation, if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?”

6. The learned Tribunal after due adjudication of the claim petition awarded compensation of Rs.15,45,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousand) only inclusive of NFL, if any, with interest @7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till payment by the Insurance Company/respondent No. 3 herein. While deciding the claim, the learned Tribunal held the opinion that as the claimant failed to file any documentary evidence regarding the occupation and income of the injured, the same was not proved, a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) was determined as his monthly income. Further, keeping in consideration of the nature of overall medical evidence, the percentage of disability affecting his earning capacity has been assessed at 80% although it is shown as 50% in Exhibit-4, the certificate issued by MMCH, Guwahati.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the claimant/appellant has preferred the instant appeal claiming enhancement of the awarded sum on the grounds, inter-alia, as follows

1. That the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the son of the appellant had suffered 100% functional disability instead of 80%;

2. That the learned trial Tribunal has failed to compute the actual medical expenses amounting Rs.9,39,124/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four) incurred on the treatment of the injured;

3. That the learned Tribunal has failed to award any compensation for future prospect of income of the injured based on the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Pranoy Sethi cases;

4. That the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the injured’s monthly income at Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) as a vegetable vendor instead of the amount fixed as income at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month;

5. That the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensat