JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice SC Das 1. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment & award, dated 04.09.2004, passed by the learned single Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala), in Case No. TS.(MAC)603/2000. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. T D Majumder for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. D K Biswas for the respdt. National Insurance Company Ltd. 3. The appellant, as petitioner, has presented the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the injury sustained by him due to motor vehicle accident. The case of the appellant was that on 18.06.2000 at about 5.30 PM he was on way to Agartala from Bishalgarh side riding a motor cycle and when reached near Malabati Tea Garned at Bishalgarh on Bishargarh - Agartala road at a place named Tea Garden Chouwmuhani, Sekerkote, a Commander Jeep vehicle bearing No. TR-01-3707 which was coming from opposite direction proceeding towards Bishargarh with abnormal high speed dashed the motor cycle and as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries on his head, face, ears, eyes, legs, hands and other parts of the body. He was taken to GB hospital where he was under treatment from 18.06.2000 to 29.06.2000 and thereafter, he was referred by the Medical Board to SSKM hospital, Kolkata for better treatment and was treated in the said hospital from 09.07.2000 to 12.07.2000 and there from he went to Appollo hospital, Chennai and undergone for treatment from 17.07.2000 to 21.07.2000 and also treated in Sankar Nethralaya, Chennai, on 28.07.2000. He spent about Rs. 1,20,000/- for the purpose of treatment. He used to work as an Electrician and also used to deal with the business as Decorator and thereby earn Rs. 6,000/- per month. He was aged about 29 years at the time of accident. He has lost eye sight of his left eye to the extent of 30% due to the accident and the Medical Board of BRAM hospital certified him as visually handicapped to the extent of 30% and as a result of that he has lost his profession and therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. 4. Respdt. He has lost eye sight of his left eye to the extent of 30% due to the accident and the Medical Board of BRAM hospital certified him as visually handicapped to the extent of 30% and as a result of that he has lost his profession and therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. 4. Respdt. No. 1, the owner of the alleged offending vehicle submitted written statement denying the averments made by the claim petition but did not state anything specific about the accident except denial thereof. It was further stated that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. covering the risk on the date of accident and therefore, liability if any, should be borne by the insurance company. 5. Respdt. No. 2, the National Insurance Company Ltd. also filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition but did not specifically deny the factum of insurance of the vehicle covering the risk on the date of accident. 6. As I find, the Tribunal framed 2(two) issues for decision based on the pleadings namely: (i) Whether Sri Avijit Majumder, Claimant-Petitioner aged about 29 years was received personal injuries and became permanent disablement to a motor accident on 18.06.2000 at about 5.30 p.m. at Malabati Tea Garden Chowmuhany, Sekerkote on Agartala-Bishargarh road under Amtali P.S due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No. TR-01-3707 (Commander Jeep)? (ii) Is the claimant-petitioner entitled to get any compensation under the M.V. Act? If so, what should be the quantum and who is liable to pay it? 7. In course of trial the claimant-petitioner, i.e. the appellant, Sri Avijit Majumder, examined himself as PW.1 and he has proved the medical certificates, prescriptions, cash memos, referral certificate of GB hospital, outdoor prescriptions of SSKM hospital, Kolkata, prescriptions of Apollo hospital, air tickets and money receipts of the hospital and a disablement certificate and those were marked as Ext.1 (series). Petitioner also produced certified copies of FIR of Amtali PS case No. 31/2000 and the charge sheet submitted by police after investigation. 8. On behalf of the respdt. No. 1 copies of the certificate of registration, tax token, insurance certificate, fitness certificate of offending vehicle and a copy of driving license in the name of driver, Md. Dulal Hussain, was produced. But no formal step was taken to prove the same by the respdt. 9. 8. On behalf of the respdt. No. 1 copies of the certificate of registration, tax token, insurance certificate, fitness certificate of offending vehicle and a copy of driving license in the name of driver, Md. Dulal Hussain, was produced. But no formal step was taken to prove the same by the respdt. 9. The Tribunal, as I find, decided both the issues in favour of the petitioner but awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 94,000/- in all. The Tribunal considered Rs. 30,000/- towards cost of treatment, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for 30% visual disability and Rs. 4,000/- towards loss of income. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Majumder that the Tribunal has failed to determine the compensation according to settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in various case laws and giving good bye to the settled law has awarded a meager lump sum compensation which is inadequate and unjust. The petitioner, therefore, has been highly aggrieved. A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, accordingly to law, is to determine a just and fair compensation, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the petitioner suffered loss due to the accident occurred for the use of motor vehicle. Since the Tribunal failed to award just compensation learned counsel prayed for awarding an adequate and just compensation to the appellant-petitioner. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas, appearing for the insurance company, has submitted that the case is one of head on collision between motor bike and the alleged offending jeep vehicle and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held responsible for making payment of entire compensation for the accidental injury alleged to have suffered by the appellant-petitioner. Regarding quantum of compensation, learned counsel, Mr. Biswas, has frankly submitted that the Tribunal did not give its reasons while fixing the amount but in the facts and circumstances of the case, total compensation, so far awarded, taking into consideration the involvement of the two motor vehicles including that of one of the petitioner, cannot be altogether said to be insufficient. 12. Biswas, has frankly submitted that the Tribunal did not give its reasons while fixing the amount but in the facts and circumstances of the case, total compensation, so far awarded, taking into consideration the involvement of the two motor vehicles including that of one of the petitioner, cannot be altogether said to be insufficient. 12. On going through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record including that of the copy of FIR and the charge sheet submitted by police, after investigation of the police case, I find that the finding of the Tribunal that a motor accident occurred on the date and time, as alleged, has been proved. The petitioner's case is that he was on way to Agartala from Bishargarh direction, riding his motor bike and near Malabati tea garden, on Bishalgarh - Agartala road, a speeding jeep vehicle (offending vehicle) knocked him down. The FIR was lodged by a pedestrian who was also alleged to have knocked down by the jeep vehicle and the FIR was lodged just immediately after the accident and, therefore, the authenticity of the allegation made in the FIR cannot be ignored in the absence of any other evidence to contradict or to counter the evidence of the petitioner. Charge sheet submitted by police shows that the investigating officer on investigation found the jeep vehicle guilty of rash and negligent driving and therefore, charge sheeted its driver, Ajit Debnath, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. Petitioner stated nothing that he was wearing helmet when he was driving the vehicle, perhaps he was not wearing the helmet and because of that he suffered head injury due to the accident. Since the respondent adduced no evidence in that regard it cannot be taken into consideration and, therefore, the issues were rightly decided by the Tribunal. 13. Regarding compensation, as I find, the petitioner was treated at Agartala and then at Kolkata and Chennai and the cost of treatment whatever the petitioner had spent and the certificates produced, should be paid to him as compensation. On perusal of the documents, i.e. the cash memos and air tickets etc., (ext.1 series) it is found that the petitioner brought on record an amount of Rs. 19,838/- as spent for treatment and the appellant petitioner is entitled to get it as compensation. On perusal of the documents, i.e. the cash memos and air tickets etc., (ext.1 series) it is found that the petitioner brought on record an amount of Rs. 19,838/- as spent for treatment and the appellant petitioner is entitled to get it as compensation. While under such treatment, besides what was paid towards purchase of medicine, air ticket and hospital charges, the petitioner had incurred certain other incidental expenditure regarding his food, transportation, attendant etc. and considering the prolonged period of treatment on that count I further grant an additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. So, in total, towards cost of treatment, the petitioner is entitled to get (Rs. 19,838/-+15,000/-=Rs. 34,838/-). It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had suffered 30% visual disability, as certified by the Medical Board of Dr. BRAM Hospital (Ext.2). The petitioner stated that he was a decorator and an electrician by profession. In support thereof he placed on record a Community Polytechnic Certificate issued by Polytechnic Institute, Narsingarh, Tripura which show that he was an Electrician and was a Decorator, so he would earn Rs. 4,000/- per month from his profession and if we take his monthly income as Rs. 4,000/- the yearly income would be Rs. 48,000/-. He was aged about 30 years at the time of accident as stated in the memorandum of appeal but in the claim petition he stated his age as 29 years and no other age proof certificate is on record so we may take it as 30 years on the date of accident. Therefore, a multiplier of 18 shall apply. If we multiple the yearly income with the multiplier, the amount stands at Rs. 48,000 x 18 = 8,64,400/-. He suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% in his left eye and such 30% disability in left eye cannot be taken to be as disability to the extent of 30% regarding his income because by profession he was decorator and electrician. We may, in all probability, take his loss of income to the extent of 15% for the rest of his life for the loss of vision of one eye. The disability certificate shows that it is permanent in nature and hence if we take 15% of the total loss of income the amount stands at Rs. 1,29,600/-. We may, in all probability, take his loss of income to the extent of 15% for the rest of his life for the loss of vision of one eye. The disability certificate shows that it is permanent in nature and hence if we take 15% of the total loss of income the amount stands at Rs. 1,29,600/-. This amount may be taken as the loss of income on the part of the petitioner for the injury and disability sustained by him due to the accident. Further, since the petitioner was under treatment for a long time in different hospitals he has definitely suffered tremendous pain and sufferings during the course of treatment and he has also to suffer discomfort and hardship for the rest of his life because of this 30% loss of vision in one eye and taking into consideration of those factors a further amount of Rs. 35,000/- is awarded as compensation. In all the petitioner is entitled to get (Rs. 34,838/- + 1,29,600/- + 35,000/-) Rs. 1,99,438/- (Rupees one lakh ninety nine thousand four hundred and thirty eight only) as compensation. 14. On perusal of the documents of insurance, I find that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. covering the risk of the date of accident and so, the insurance company is to make payment of compensation. But surprisingly I find that the owner of the vehicle produced photocopy of the driving license of one Md. Dulal Hussain, whereas, the police charge sheet shows that one Ajit Debnath was the driver of the offending vehicle and so the stand taken by the owner that one Md. Dulal Hussain was the driver of the vehicle, whose driving license has been submitted on record, may not be true or that the charge sheet submitted by police was not correct. In either case in the absence of any definite evidence adduced in this regard it is a confusion as to who was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. The insurance company did not challenge the decision of the Tribunal on this ground either before the Tribunal or before this Court. In either case in the absence of any definite evidence adduced in this regard it is a confusion as to who was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. The insurance company did not challenge the decision of the Tribunal on this ground either before the Tribunal or before this Court. Since it is a case of payment of compensation and since the vehicle was under cover of valid insurance and the issue of validity of driving license was/is not raised, the insurance company is directed to make the payment within 45 days from today with 9% interest thereon from the date of presentation of the petition before Tribunal excluding the amount, if any, already paid and the insurance company will be at liberty to realize the amount so paid from the owner of the vehicle, if the insurance company so think that the owner of the vehicle was with fault in respect of the terms of insurance regarding the driving license of the driver. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 04.09.2004 in case No. TS(MAC)603/2000 is set aside. It is hereby ordered that the appellant-petitioner is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 1,99,438/- (Rupees one lakh ninety nine thousand four hundred and thirty eight only) as compensation with 9% interest thereon from the date of presentation of the petition before Tribunal and the respdt. No. 2, National Insurance Company, is to make payment of compensation within 45 days from today, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum. The National Insurance Company, however, will be at liberty to realize the amount from the owner of the vehicle, if the discrepancy regarding driver of the vehicle at the time of accident is found genuine and proved in due course. 16. A copy of this judgment may be made available to the learned counsels of the parties for compliance. 17. Parties are to bear their own cost. Appeal allowed