JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

[1] Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G. Uddin, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

[2] This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant, namely, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. impugning the judgment and award dated 16.06.2017, passed by the learned District Judge-cum- Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimganj, in MAC Case No. 93/2018.

[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 18.02.2011, at about 9:30 P.M., when the son of the present respondent No. 1, namely, Zakir Hussain Talukdar, was driving a motor cycle, a Truck bearing Registration No. AS-10-3439, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle causing an accident wherein, he sustained grievous injuries on his person. Thereafter, after the said accident, the father of the injured Zakir Hussain Talukdar, namely, the present respondent No. 1, had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimganj by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by his son in the above-mentioned vehicular accident. The aforesaid claim case was registered as MAC Case No. 93/2018. The present appellant contested the claim by filing written statement taking various defences, including the defence that the offending truck was not covered under valid insurance policy. The owner of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal and the claim case proceeded ex-parte against the said owner. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed following issues:-

“i. Whether the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-10-A-1214 in question and injures of the injured occurred in the accident?

ii. Whether the vehicle was duly insured with respective opposite party Insurance Company covering the period of the accident?

iii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if so, to what extent and by whom payable?

iv. To what other relief/reliefs the claimant is entitled in law and equity?”

[4] In support of his claim, the father of the victim examined 4(four) witnesses and exhibited several documents. The insurance company did not examine any witness in support of their defence. Ultimately, by the judgment and award dated 16.06.2017, which has been impugned in this appeal, a compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-along with an interest @ 6% per annum was awarded to the claimant.

[5] Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that this appeal is mainly directed against the impugned judgment in as much as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the injured without taking into consideration the injury report, as well as laid down principles in this regard by the Apex Court. He submits that though the doctor, who has been examined as witness No. 4 and, who, was one of the members of the medical board, which assessed the disability of the injured victim has categorically found that the physical disablement of the victim (son of the claimant) was only to the extent of 10 %, as his right lower limb was found to be 2 cm short causing permanent physical disablement. However, the Tribunal assessed the functional disability to the extent of 100%. He further submits that the medical board, which examined the injured, had also opined that the injured suffered intellectual impairment reducing the intelligence quotient to 60. However, it failed to take into consideration that the medical board has recommended further assessment and evaluation of the injured by neurologist and neurosurgeon.

[6] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal without directing an assessment regarding the intellectual impairment of