JUDGEMENT :

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company – appellant herein, is aggrieved of and seeks setting-aside of Award dated 16th March 2020, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, (for brevity “Tribunal”), on a Claim Petition, bearing File no.305/2015, titled Imaad Durrani v. Irshad Ahmed Shah and others, saddling appellant Insurance Company with liability to indemnify insured and pay compensation of Rs.18,67,400/- along with 7.5% interest from the date of presentation of claim petition till final realization, on the grounds made mention of in Appeal on hand.

2. I have gone through the file and considered the matter.

3. A claim petition, as is discernible from perusal of file, was filed by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal on 4th December 2015 for grant of compensation on account of grievous injuries suffered by him because of vehicular accident by rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle (Swift bearing Registration no.JK13B/7828) on 2nd March 2015, when respondent no.1 was driving his vehicle (Maruti 800) near Rawalpora, Srinagar. Respondent is stated to have been taken to hospital, and thereafter he underwent a number of surgeries out of J&K, on which he spent huge amount. FIR no.43/205 in police station Budgam was also registered. The right eye of respondent no.1 is said to have badly injured. On the basis of case set up, respondent no.1 sought compensation in the amount of Rs.95.00 Lacs.

4. Owner and driver of vehicle caused their appearance before Tribunal and insisted that vehicle in question was not involved in any accident and that driver of offending vehicle was holding licence. Appellant Insurance Company insisted that driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence, albeit it was admitted that vehicle was insured.

5. The Tribunal, given pleadings of parties, framed following issues for adjudication:

1. Whether on 02.03.2015, the petitioner while driving his vehicle Maruti 800 was hit by the vehicle (Swift) bearing regd. No.JK13B/7828 which was being driven by respondent – driver rashly and negligently as a consequence of which petitioner suffered serious injuries, including loss of eyesight of right eye, rendering him permanently disabled? OPP

2. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was driving vehicle without valid D/L and other vehicular documents as such respondent no.1 has committed breach of policy conditions which absolves the respondent company from its liability? OPR-3

3. Whether in case issue no.1&2 are decided in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

4. Relief. OPP

6. Claimant/respondent no.1 produced seven witnesses, besides claimant. Appellant insurance company did not produce any witness in support of its stand.

7. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has stated that claimant/respondent no.1, in support of his claim petition, had produced a witness, namely, Gurdeep Singh (Operation Officer) of Adarsh Build Estate Limited, where respondent no.1 was working from July 2014 as Sales Officer and his salary was shown as Rs.2.50 Lacs per annum, and after accident, he was stated to have left the job and the said witness was not aware whether claimant/respondent no.1 was working or not. According to learned counsel, respondent no.1 had shown before the Tribunal that he was not working whereas fact of matter is that respondent no.1 had willingly left the job. Thus, respondent no.1 cannot claim and is not entitled to compensation under the head “Loss of income”. Respondent no.1 is stated to have not lost the job due to accident. It is contended that injuries suffered by claimant/respondent no.1 cannot stop or reduce his capability to perform his job in private company, in which he was employed prior to the date of accident. Even, according to counsel for appellant Insurance Company, as on date, complainant/respondent no.1 is working in a private company and earning a handsome