The genuineness of the income certificate and the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act were central legal points established in the judgment.

Wangdi, J.

This Appeal is directed against judgment dated 25-05-2012 in MACT Case No.22 of 2009 passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, by which the claim petition for compensation of Rs.4,14,984/- against permanent partial disablement filed by the Appellant was rejected by allowing only Rs.51,184/-.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that in the morning of 07-08-2008 at about 10 a.m. the Appellant while travelling in a taxi jeep bearing registration No.SK- 04/4043 from Singtam to Mazitar got grievously injured when the taxi jeep collided with SNT tanker bearing No.SK-03/3481 thereby causing permanent disability to his right knee (patella) due to which he is unable to perform his day-to-day activities as he can neither bend his right knee nor walk normally. This disability had caused a severe set back in his business of poultry farm from which he was earning Rs.17,000/- only per month and that he is aged about 45 years having a dependant wife and two school going children aged about 15 and 16 years. As per the Appellant, the loss of earning he had suffered due to the accident is about Rs.4,14,984/.

3. The Respondents No.1 and 2 contested the claim by filing separate written objections. While the Respondent No.2, i.e., Branch Manager of the Insurance Company, has restricted his objection to the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the accident taxi jeep, the Respondent No.1, i.e., the owner of the vehicle, on the other hand, dealt with the claim also on the merits of it on various grounds which, in my view, are not relevant considering the limited question necessary to be determined in the present case.

4. The Learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as five issues which are set out hereinbelow:-

(i) Whether the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties?

(ii) Whether the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the SNT Tanker bearing registration no.SK-03/3481 or the driver of Mahindra Max bearing registration no.SK-04/4043?

(iii) Whether the driving licence of the driver Jiban Thapa of Mahindra Max bearing registration no.SK04/4043 was valid and genuine at the time of the accident?

(iv) Whether the income certificate in respect of the claimant is genuine?

(v) To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the claimants entitled?

All issues were decided in favour of the Appellant except for issue no.(iv) resulting in the issue no.(v) being decided on different considerations which is the subject matter of the present Appeal.

5. Considering the pleadings and the proceedings held before the Learned Claims Tribunal the parties have restricted their arguments before this Court as regard issue no.4 only, i.e., “whether the income certificate in respect of the claimant is genuine”. It is their case that if it is held that income certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant is genuine then different consideration will have to be applied to issues no.(iv) and (v).

6(i). Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2, no doubt sought to question the finding on issue no. (iii), i.e., the validity of the driving licence of the driver involved in the accident, and the quantum of the compensation that the Appellant would have been entitled to considering the actual loss of earning suffered by him against the disability of 20%.

(ii) The objection raised by Mr. Bhutia, in my view, is impermissible as no Cross Appeal has been filed by the Respondent No.2 against the finding on issue no.(iii), i.e., on the question of validity of the driving licence of the driver of the accident vehicle. When asked of him on this, Mr. Bhutia submitted that no instructions were received by him from the Respondent No.2. Even the other question, i.e., the quantum of compensation, raised by Mr. Bhutia calls for outright rejection since the Respondent No.2