The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 based on the claimant's disability and earning capacity, and the liability of the insurer for the accident caused by the driver of the insured vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia , J.

1. The present appeal which has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is directed against the Award dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (MACT), whereby against the claim of Rs.80 lakhs, the appellant- Company being insurer of the Harvester Combine, which was involved in a accident has been fastened liability of Rs.20,52,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. The said amount had been assessed on the basis that the claimant had suffered 100% disability in both eyes and, therefore, it had adversely affected his earning capacity completely to the same extent.

2. Reliance was placed upon the disability certificate (Ex.P1) to come to the conclusion that the claimant-Jasbir who was aged around 40 years had suffered injuries. While adjudicating on the issue of compensation, it was noticed that he remained admitted in the hospital as indoor patient from 06.10.2017 to 24.10.2017, after the accident had taken place, in the fields where the Combine had been turned towards him and he had come under the tyres of the vehicle. An FIR No.202 dated 14.10.2017 under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC was also registered against respondent No.2, who was driver of the Combine and he had never contested the petition and was proceeded against ex parte. It was noticed that the claimant was around 41 years old, as his year of birth was 1976 as per Aadhar Card (Ex.P100) and his income was assessed @ Rs.8280/- per month as per the notification in respect to the minimum rate of wages of an unskilled person/labourer w.e.f. 01.01.2017.

3. Dr. Neetika Bhatnagar, Eye Surgeon, Kalpana Chawla Hospital, Karnal had proved the disability of blindness of both eyes of the claimant and proved disability certificate (Ex.P1) and had stated that the disability is of permanent nature, and, therefore, there was no chance of improvement.

4. Keeping in view the bill (Ex.P10) showing that he had remained admitted from 06.10.2017 to 24.10.2017, whereby a sum of Rs.3,02,490/- had been charged, apart from other medical bills (Ex.P11 to Ex.P36 and Ex.P45 to Ex.P99) whereby the claimant had spent a sum of Rs.5,81,000/-, the same were held to be proved spent on the treatment of the injured, to assess the amount of physical disability @ Rs.13,91,040/-, which was awarded. The income was taken in view of notification for minimum wages with the multiplier of 14 and keeping in view his age and apart from that Rs.40,000/- had been awarded as pain and suffering including special diets. Another Rs.40,000/- had been awarded for the amenities of life.

5. The nature of disability, which the claimant as such had suffered would also mean that he would require a attendant for all times and, therefore, it cannot be said that the amount awarded as such is excessive in any manner. The negligence as such was assessed on account of the fact that a final report had also been prepared by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C., after investigation and the driver had also been charged for the offence of negligence under IPC for causing injuries. One Mam Chand had been examined as PW-2, who was the eye witness had deposed in support of the negligence of the driver of the Combine and that the claimant as such was sitting on the Dol in the fields when the offending vehicle was turned towards him, which hit the claimant who came under the tyres of the Combine. It was rightly noticed that the driver had not appeared in the witness box to deny the manner of accident and, therefore, keeping in view the factual matrix as such and the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Combine while driving insured vehicle which led to the injuries, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimant.

6. The liability had been fixed on the ground that the Driving Licence (Ex.R1) was valid as such and Ex.R2 would go on to show that the Insurance Policy was in force w.e.f. 10.04.2