JUDGEMENT

With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

The appellant/claimant has filed this Misc. Appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short “the Act”) assailing the award passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rewa, in MACC No.1900219/2015 on 26/11/2021, whereby claim petition has been partly allowed and award for Rs.9,74,632/- along with 7% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 4/8/2015 has been passed.

2. Facts in brief giving rise to the claim case are that on 6/3/2014 the appellant with his wife was going from village Mangawan to Alamganj riding on his motorcycle bearing registration no.MP-17-MA- 0519. At about 6:00 p.m., as he reached near Shere Punjab Dhaba in village Ambi, respondent no.1 driving tanker no. O.R.-14-T-5958 rashly and negligently came from Rewa side and going on wrong side hit motorcycle with extreme force which caused severe injuries to the appellant resulting in permanent disablement.

2.1 In claim petition it has also been narrated that before accident, the appellant was serving in Adult Education Department, working as Mate in village Panchayat and also performing agricultural activities. He was earning Rs.3000/- from Adult Education Department, Rs.10,000/- p.m. from agricultural activities and Rs.4,050/- p.m. from village Panchayat. Due to the permanent disablement caused by injuries sustained in the accident, he has lost his income and has also incurred near about Rs. 5,00,000/- on treatment. Thus, claimant preferred the claim petition for amount of compensation of Rs.60,47,800/- with interest.

3. Respondents no.1 and 2 controverting the allegations of the claim petition specifically mentioned that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company/respondent no.3, therefore, if any liability of payment arises, that will be payable by the insurance company. Respondent no.3/insurance company disputed the factum of income of the appellant of Rs.17,050/- p.m. and also averred that driver of the offending vehicle was not having registration fitness permit and valid and effective license which is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken exception to the impugned award; firstly, on the ground that income of the appellant should have been taken as Rs.5500/- p.m. as per guideline of M.P. State Legal Services Authority No.F.No.21/NLA/MPSLSA/24/7/2022, Jabalpur dated 28/7/2022 (for short “the guidelines of MPSLSA”).

Secondly, he submits that in the head of future prospects 40% of the income should have been added as per the guidelines given in the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680. Lastly, he has pointed out that even though disability certificate submitted by the appellant reveals permanent disability of 60% but the learned claims tribunal took the disability of the appellant only 40% ignoring the fact that functional disability of the appellant is 100%. For this, he has drawn attention of this Court towards para 15 of the impugned award and also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Gurudev Singh vs. Reliance General Ins. Co., (2023)ACJ 1255, Jithendran vs. The New India Assurance Co. Limited and Another,(2021) ACJ 2736 and Sarnam Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. and others, (2023) ACJ 1450.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/insurance company submits that appellant could not prove his income as claim in claim petition, therefore, the learned claims tribunal was not bound to take resort to the guidelines given by the MPSLSA for notional income.

He has also disputed that functional disability of the appellant is not upto 100%. Learned claims tribunal has rightly taken disability to 40% and supporting the impugned award the counsel has prayed for dismissi