Assessment of permanent disability and its impact on earning capacity is crucial in determining compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended ['the M.V. Act', for short], is directed against a judgment and award dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge [F.T.C.], Karimganj ['the Tribunal', for short] in M.A.C. Case No. 44/2013 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.17,71,000/- as compensation to the claimant i.e. the respondent No. 1 herein with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till payment.

2. The respondent No. 1 herein, as the claimant, had filed a claim application before the learned Tribunal under Section 166, M.V. Act claiming compensation for the injuries stated to have been sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 28.05.2012. The claim application was registered and numbered as M.A.C. Case No. 44/2013. In the claim application, the claimant had stated that on the date of the accident i.e. on 28.05.2012, he was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No. AS-10/5793 and another auto rickshaw bearing registration No. AS-10/C-0713, by coming in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the auto rickshaw where the claimant was travelling. The claimant stated to have suffered serious injuries leading to his permanent disablement.

3. The claimant projected that at the time of the accident, he was self employed and was running a photography studio. He was also working as an agent of SBI Life Insurance Company. In connection with the accident, a crime case being Karimganj Police Station Case No. 355/2012 was registered for offences under Sections 279/338, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. In the claim application, the owners and the insurers of both the auto rickshaws were arraigned as opposite parties. The opposite party No. 2 was the insurer of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No. AS-10/C-0713 and is the present appellant. The opposite party No. 2 - appellant contested the claim application by filing its written statement. The opposite party No. 4 i.e. the respondent No. 4 herein also filed its written statement as the insurer of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No. AS-10/5793. The learned Tribunal after framing four Nos. of issues, proceeded to record the evidence. In support of the claim application, the claimant side adduced the evidence of only one witness i.e. the claimant himself and exhibited 88 Nos. of documents. The claimant was duly cross-examined on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 4. The defence did not adduce any evidence of rebuttal. The learned Tribunal thereafter, delivered its judgment and award on 30.09.2016 by assessing a sum of Rs.17,71,000/- as just and fair compensation in favour of the claimant in the following manner :

4. I have heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant i.e. the opposite party No. 2 in M.A.C. Case No. 44/2013; Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 [the claimant in M.A.C. Case No. 44/2013]; and Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 [the opposite party No. 4 in M.A.C. Case No. 44/2013]. None has appeared for the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the presence of the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3 are not necessary considering the fact that the appeal has been filed on the point of quantum.

5. It is pertinent to state that the appeal was originally preferred by M/s. Bharati Axa General Insurance Company Limited and it was arraigned in the claim application as the opposite party No. 2. During the pendency of the instant appeal, M/s. Bhar