JUDGMENT :

W.Diengdoh, J.

1. Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ri- Bhoi District, Nongpoh in MACT Case No. 59 of 2015 by which judgment an award of 13,68,520/- (rupees thirteen lakh sixty-eight thousand five hundred twenty) only along with interest @ 9 percent from the date of filing of the claim petition, that is, 11.03.2014 till payment of the same was awarded in favour of the respondent No. 1/claimant.

2. Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant/New India Assurance Company Ltd. has submitted that the appellant being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award has approached this Court with a prayer to set aside/modify the same and/or to pass any order or orders as deem fit and proper by this Court.

3. The learned counsel at the outset has led this Court to the background facts of the case to say that it is an admitted fact that on 13.05.2013 at about 4.20 pm a motor vehicle accident had occurred at Byrnihat, Ri-Bhoi District involving a truck No. AS 01 DD 2151, the result being that the minor son of the claimant sustained injuries. Apart from the police registering a case being Nongpoh P.S. Case No. 71(05)2013 under Section 279/338 IPC against the respondent No. 3 (driver of the said truck) the respondent No. 1/claimant has also preferred a claim application under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Ri-Bhoi, Nongpoh which was registered as MACT Case No. 59 of 2015.

4. Notices were issued to the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle involved, however, only the said insurer, that is, the present appellant herein contested the matter while proceedings proceeded ex parte against the owner and driver of the said vehicle.

5. About nine issues were framed by the learned Member, MACT inter alia, touching on the issue of maintainability, negligence, validity of insurance policy as well as validity of driving license as well as the liability of the appellant herein to pay compensation to the claimant. In all, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant and one witness (OPW-1) was examined on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company.

6. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded. It seems strange to the learned counsel that the MACT has awarded the exact amount of compensation as was prayed for, including interest where such award is deemed to be “fair enough”. This reflects the failure of the learned Tribunal in adopting a judicial approach without considering or examining the evidence on record in this regard.

7. At para 34 of the impugned judgment the learned Tribunal has come to a finding that “…On perusal of the claim petition the claimant in the instant case has not made any claim for permanent disability of his minor son…”, the same observation being reiterated at para 35 of the said judgment to the extent that “…The claimant has not made any claim with regards to the permanent disability or future prospects of his minor son…”. However, from the claim petition, it is seen that at para 19(d), the claimant has raised a claim of 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) only in respect of permanent disability of the son of the claimant and this amount has been awarded in spite of the related observations made by the learned Tribunal, further submits the learned counsel.

8. Even otherwise, assuming the claim for permanent disability has indeed been raised by the claimant, there is nothing in evidence to establish such assertion. The claimant has not been able to produce any disability certificate setting out the extent of disability of his injured son and even the medico legal report (papermark-6) produced by CW-4/doctor also did not disclose any permanent injury or disability suffered by the victim. At best, the doctor has diagnosed that the injuries sustained are grievous which cannot be equated with the same bei