The validity of the insurance policy and the acceptance of the disability certificate were crucial in determining the compensation awarded to the claimant.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. Mahapatra, J. - Copies of the appeal memo filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the National Insurance Company Ltd. as well as cross objection filed under Order XLI, Rule 22 of CPC by the claimant-Respondent have been exchanged between both parties. Both appeals and cross objection are admitted. On the request of learned Counsel for parties, both the appeal and cross objection are taken up together for hearing.

2. The above appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 5th August, 2005 passed by 3rd M.A.C.T., Jajpur in M.A.C. Case No. 57 of 2003 at the instance of the Appellant-Insurance Company.

3. Case of the claimant-Respondent before the Tribunal, in a nut shell, is that on 1.5.2003 at about 12 noon while the claimant was standing on the extreme left side of the road of N.H. No. 200, the offending truck bearing Registration No. OR-O4A-1041 being driven in a high speed rashly and negligently by the driver dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant as a result of which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his legs, nose and other parts of the body. He was shifted to the Hospital at Jajpur Road. From the X-Ray report it was found that the femur bone was completely fractured. The bone of the great Toe was also fractured. Fracture was also noticed on the nasal bone. Thereafter, the Petitioner was referred to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack by the treating physician, but the Petitioner was treated in a private Nursing Home at Cuttack. The operation was conducted and nailing was done to set right the fracture. On 18.5.2003 the Petitioner was discharged from the Nursing Home with an advice for regular check up. The Petitioner had visited the Nursing Home for about 4 to 5 times. Another operation was undertaken to remove the nails fixed earlier. According to the claimant-Respondent, due to accident he suffered a permanent partial disability and he being a business man could not look after his business. Now he is depending on others to perform his day-to-day work. In the claim petition he had claimed compensation for pain, suffering, mental agony, medicine expenses and other incidental charges.

4. Before the Tribunal owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and was set ex parte. Opposite party No. 2-Insurance CompanyAppellant filed written statement pleading inter alia that there was No. accident as claimed by the claimant. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was not covered by valid insurance policy issued by opposite party No. 2 and the driver of the offending vehicle had also No. driving licence. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence produced/adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was covered by a valid Insurance Policy issued by the Insurance Company. The driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was valid at the time of accident. The Tribunal further assessed the annual income of the claimant-Respondent at Rs. 25,000/- and 10% of his income towards partial permanent disability. Applying 15 multiplier the learned Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation at Rs. 37,500/. Rs. 36,770/- was awarded towards medicines and other miscellaneous charges. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 74,270/- was allowed besides cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The Appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation along with 6% interest both pendente lite and future interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment. Rs. 40,000/- was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of 5 years with in