The necessity for concrete medical evidence to establish the extent of disability in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act was emphasized, highlighting the need for a proper assessment of negligence and liability.

JUDGMENT :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

The present appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the MV Act of 1988) has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned MACT, Mokokchung, Nagaland in MAC Case No. 12/2020.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vikramjeet Devnath and Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent no. 1 (R-1). None appears for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

3. In the present case, the R-1 as claimant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act of 1988 before the MACT, Mokokchung, Nagaland being registered as MAC Case No. 12/2020 claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 29.01.2020 involving a vehicle bearing No. NL-02C-6422, wherein the claimant/R-1 was walking on foot on the roadside of Old Dikhu Road near Chuchuyimpang Village, Mokokchung. While walking, the Maruti car bearing No. NL-02C-6422 hit him from the opposite direction. As a result he sustained bodily injury, with a compound fracture of Tibia and was rushed to the hospital. In the claim petition, the present appellant was impleaded as opposite party no. 1.

4. The learned Tribunal by Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2022 awarded a compensation of Rs. 11,87,758/- (Rupees Eleven lakh Eighty- seven thousand Seven hundred Fifty-eight only) and thereby fastened the entire liability upon the appellant Company payable within 30 (thirty) days from the date of filing the claim petition @9% per annum till realization.

5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2022, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

(i) The instant claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the MV Act of 1988 and as such the onus was on the claimants/respondents to prove the rash and negligent driving by conclusive and concrete evidence which was not done by the claimant/R-1 before the Tribunal.

(ii) That as per the Accident Information Report issued by the Traffic Control, Mokokchung vide GDE No. 203/2020 dated 29.01.2020, the case of the accident could not have been ascertained as there was no FIR and there was no investigation conducted.

(iii) That the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the injury sustained by the claimant/R-1 was a simple injury and not permanent disability. More so, the disability of the claimant being temporary or permanent is not specified in the disability certificate. In the absence of such distinction of temporary or permanent disability of the claimant, the learned Tribunal could not have come to a conclusion that the claimant sustained permanent disability.

(iv) There is no evidence of the Investigating Officer to prove that the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, in as much as no sketch-map or Accident Information Report or any other such documents were exhibited by the claimants. Moreover, no Final Investigation Report was produced before the learned Tribunal.

(v) The learned Tribunal overlooked the most vital aspect of the case that the attending Doctor was not examined to prove the disability of the claimant and none of the Doctors who were members of the Medical Board which issued the disability certificate were examined.

(vi) The claimant/R-1 is a daily-wage laborer and claimed to earn Rs.700/- per day; however, the claimant did not produce any documentar