JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. The present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred by the appellant - original opponent- Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenging the impugned Judgment and award dated 24/01/2007 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Porbandar in MACP No.159/2003, by which, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said petition by directing the appellant - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation to pay total a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- to the original claimant with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till realization. 2. It appears that an accident took place on 21/09/2003 between Truck No.GTW-3929 and one ST Bus No.GJ-10-V-5407, in which original claimant, who was the driver of truck being Truck No.GTW-3929 sustained injuries and permanent partial disability and, therefore, he has preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No.159/2003 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Porbandar claiming compensation at Rs. 3 Lacs. On appreciation of evidence on record inclusive of medical certificate of Doctor produced at Exh-27 accessing permanent partial disability to the extent of 14% and considering the income of claimant at Rs. 2,500/- per month and considering the age of claimant of 22 years at the relevant time applying multiplier by 16, the Tribunal partly allowed the said claim petition directing appellant - Corporation to pay total a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- to the original claimant by way of compensation. Being aggrieved by and disability with the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has preferred the present First Appeal. 3. Mrs.Falguni Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that as the Driver of the ST Bus was not joined as party in the main claim petition, the Tribunal has materially erred in passing the impugned Judgment and award. In support of the above contention, she has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and others reported in 2007 ACJ 1284 . Mrs.Falguni Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that even the Tribunal has materially erred in considering the permanent partial disability to the extent of 14% in absence of any oral evidence of the Doctor, who treated the claimant. Mrs.Falguni Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that even the Tribunal has materially erred in considering the permanent partial disability to the extent of 14% in absence of any oral evidence of the Doctor, who treated the claimant. She has further submitted that the Tribunal has also materially erred in awarding future economic loss considering the income of the claimant at Rs. 2500/- per month. By making above submissions, it is requested to admit the present appeal. 4. Heard Mrs.Falguni Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and considered the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal as well as evidence on record. So far as first contention on behalf of the appellant that the claim petition was required to be dismissed as driver of the ST Bus was not joined as party to the claim petition, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the said claim petition is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that as no such defence was raised before the Tribunal. If at the relevant time such defence would have been raised, in that case, the claimant might have joined the driver as party in the main claim petition. Under the circumstances, now it is not open for the appellant to raise the contention before this Court that appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary party in the main claim petition. 5. Now so far as reliance placed upon by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in the case of Meena Variyal and others (supra) is concerned, on facts, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the driver is owner of the vehicle and in the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the question which was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to driver of the private vehicle and owner and liability of the insurance company. 6. Now so far as contention on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future economic loss considering the permanent partial disability to the extent of 14% is concerned, the same has no substance. 6. Now so far as contention on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future economic loss considering the permanent partial disability to the extent of 14% is concerned, the same has no substance. The appellant has produced disability certificate issued by Doctor at Exh.27 and nothing is on record that at the relevant time the appellant objected to give exhibit number to the said document. Under the circumstances, when the said Certificate is permitted to be produced before the Tribunal and when the Tribunal has relied upon the same, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in relying upon the said document produced at Exh-27. 7. Now so far as contention on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded future economic loss considering income of the claimant at Rs. 2500/- per month is concerned, the same has also no substance. It is not in dispute that the claimant was serving as driver, aged about 22 years. Even considering the minimum wages paid to the driver at the relevant time and future rise in the income, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding future economic loss considering the income of the claimant at Rs. 2500/- per month. 8. In view of the above, there is no substance in the present appeal, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of the First Appeal, no order in Civil Application and Civil Application is also accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal Dismissed.