JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Katakey 1. This appeal by the insurance company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act), is directed against the award dated 07.11.2007 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC Case No. 97/2004, awarding compensation of Rs.2,69,652/-, which includes the interim compensation of Rs.25,000/-, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization and directing the appellant insurance company to satisfy the award within 30 days. 2. The respondent No. 1 herein, on behalf of the insured, namely, Saiful Islam, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, Nagaland, against the owner of Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. NL-04/T-0328, the driver as well as the appellant herein, the insurer in respect of the said motor vehicle, contending inter alia that on 10.05.2004 at about 3 P.M. when Saiful Islam was working in a bamboo shop at Lahorijan near Hanuman Mandir under Bokajan Police Station in the District of Karbi-Anglong, Assam, the aforesaid vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner hit Saiful Islam and as a result of which he received fracture injuries on the right hand middle finger and tibia, fibula of left leg. The said application was registered and numbered as MAC Case No. 97/2004. 3. On receipt of the summons, while the present appellant, who was the respondent No. 3 in the said proceeding, contested the same, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, however, did not contest the said proceeding. The appellant insurance company in the written statement filed has taken the plea that the vehicle having been insured as a private vehicle, they are not liable for the compensation as the vehicle has been used on hire, there being violation of the condition of policy. It has also been contended that in any case, the claim of the injured is highly excessive, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by him. The permission as sought for by the appellant insurance company under Section 170 of the Act was granted by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.09.2005, which was reiterated in the order dated 29.05.2007. 4. The permission as sought for by the appellant insurance company under Section 170 of the Act was granted by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.09.2005, which was reiterated in the order dated 29.05.2007. 4. The claimant in support of the claim examined himself as PW-1 and also examined the insured, namely, Saiful Islam as PW-2 apart from examining the employer of the injured as PW-3. That apart, the investigating officer in respect of Bokajan P.S. Case No. 69/2004 registered under Section 279/338 IPC, relating to the accident, was also examined on commission. The insurance company examined one witness, namely, the Administrative Officer as DW-1. All the witnesses were cross-examined by the respective parties. While the claimant proved 7 (seven) documents, namely, the Exts.-P1 to P4 - the cash memos to prove the medical expenditure, Ext.-P5 - the report of the radiologist dated 12.05.2004 including the X-ray plate, Ext.-P6 - the certificate issued by the Civil Hospital, Dimapur, where the injured was initially treated and Ext.-P7 i.e. the authority letter given by the injured Saiful Islam in favour of the respondent No. 1 to file claim petition on his behalf, the insurance company did not produce and prove any document including the insurance policy containing the terms and conditions of insurance. 5. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences on record, both oral and documentary, by the aforesaid order dated 07.10.2011 awarded the compensation of Rs.2,69,652/-and directed the appellant insurance company to satisfy the same within 30 days with a further direction that in default it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization. Hence the appeal. 6. I have heard Mrs. A. Modi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the other respondents despite service. 7. Mrs. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant referring to the copy of the policy schedule of the insurance policy issued by the appellant insurance company in respect of the vehicle in question pertaining to the period from 14.01.2004 to 13.01.2005, has submitted that since the policy was issued in respect of a private car, the appellant insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award passed by the learned Tribunal, as the vehicle met with the accident while using it for hire. According to the learned counsel, since it has specifically been provided in the policy that it will cover the risk of the owner of the motor vehicle provided it is not used for hire, the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award, because of the violation of the conditions of the policy. The learned counsel, on the question of quantum of compensation awarded, has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken the disability of the injured as 60% without there being any evidence whatsoever on record. According to the learned counsel, even the injured, who was examined as PW-2, did not say about his permanent disability not to speak off any percentage thereof. Mrs. Modi further submits that going by the evidences as adduced by the claimant, it appears that at the most the injured was suffering may be for maximum of 11/2 years and whose daily income being Rs.150/-, as stated by the employer i.e. PW-3, the loss of income at the most would be Rs.81,000/-. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal is highly excessive, which needs to be modified in the appeal. 8. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, on the other hand, submits that because of the injuries sustained by the injured (PW-2), he is even today not in a position to do any work and as such the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned award. It has also been submitted that the insurance company has rightly been made liable to satisfy the award in the absence of production of any proof by the insurance company that the vehicle was used for hire purpose at the time of accident. The learned counsel further submits that the terms and conditions of the policy and also the policy document has also never been produced and proved by the insurance company, who, however, do not dispute the insurance coverage in respect of the vehicle for the aforesaid period. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record, both oral and documentary. 10. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record, both oral and documentary. 10. The appellant insurance company though has taken the plea of violation of the conditions of the policy, contending that the vehicle was used for hire and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy document has not been produced and proved by the insurance company. Even if, the document reflecting the premium paid as produced by the insurance company before this Court is taken into consideration, wherefrom it appears that the vehicle was insured as private vehicle, and that the policy would not be operative if it is used for hire, the insurance company could not place any evidence on record to the effect that on the date of accident, the vehicle was used for hire. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, the contention of the appellant that there is violation of the conditions of the policy cannot be accepted and hence rejected. 11. This leads to the next contention relating to the quantum as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,30,400/-towards the loss of income by taking the disability of the injured as 60%. Though there are evidences on record that the middle finger of the right hand as well as the tibia and fibula of the left leg of the injured (PW-2) were fractured, there is absolutely no evidence on record even to suggest any disability not to speak off 60% disability as taken by the learned Tribunal. It however appears from the evidences of PWs-1 and 2 that up to the date of their examination as witness before the Court i.e. on 28.09.2005, the injured was suffering. The daily income of the injured was Rs.150/-as has been stated by the employer (PW-3) as well as by the claimant (PW-1). There is no cross-examination on the daily income of the injured as well as his injury and sufferance. 12. That being the position, the injured Saiful Islam would be entitled to the loss of income for a period of 11/2 years i.e. Rs.81,000/-, his annual income being Rs.54,000/-. There is no cross-examination on the daily income of the injured as well as his injury and sufferance. 12. That being the position, the injured Saiful Islam would be entitled to the loss of income for a period of 11/2 years i.e. Rs.81,000/-, his annual income being Rs.54,000/-. The claimant also could prove the medical expenditure to the tune of Rs.24,252/-as awarded by the learned Tribunal, to which the injured would be entitled to apart from Rs.15,000/-towards the mental shock and physical pain and suffering. Thus the injured would be entitled to an amount of Rs.1,20,252/-, which amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization. The appellant insurance company shall satisfy the award within a period of 2 (two) months from today, by way of account payee cheque in the name of the injured Saiful Islam. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified to the extent as indicated above. 13. The appeal stands partly allowed. No costs. 14. The Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith.