JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present petition has been filed by petitioner Insurance Company assailing the award dated 9.3.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan (hereinafter referred to as the MACT) in MAC Petition No. 17-NL/2 of 2009, vide which respondent No. 1/claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for her disability suffered on account of accident dated 11.12.2008 during her travel in Bus No. HP-64-4697 owned by respondent No. 2 and being driven by respondent No. 3. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner-Company submits that in present petition impugned award has been assailed on the ground of perversity and in view of ratio laid down by this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Soma Devi 2003 ACJ 1919 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chand and others, 2008 (1) ACJ 679, present petition is maintainable against the award passed by the MACT. 4. In Soma Devi’s case, referred supra, Full Bench of this Court has held as under:- “15. It, therefore, becomes abundantly clear that in all such like cases where the award on the face of it is a perversity, or is based on fraud, and the insurance company has no remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act of either challenging the award in appeal or being either to have it recalled or reviewed by the Tribunal itself, the power of judicial review by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution can always be invoked and exercised by this Court in dispensing justice to the parties. 16. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, while dealing with the reference made to us vide single Bench order dated 18.7.2003, we hold that with respect to an insurer, if it challenges the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal only on the ground of compensation being high, excessive or unreasonable, in a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, such a petition in view of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not maintainable. This was the limited, rather the only question of law, which was referred to us for consideration and we have answered it accordingly. All the writ petitions shall now be listed before the appropriate single Benches for disposal according to law. Reference answered and disposed of.” 5. This was the limited, rather the only question of law, which was referred to us for consideration and we have answered it accordingly. All the writ petitions shall now be listed before the appropriate single Benches for disposal according to law. Reference answered and disposed of.” 5. Following ratio of law laid down by Full Bench in Soma Devi’s case, Division Bench of this Court in Prem Chand’s case supra had entertained petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India on the ground of perversity with following observations:- “5. We are bound by the decision of the Full Bench of this court and according to us the only two grounds on which the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can be challenged in a writ petition by the insurance company are that the award is perverse or that it is based on fraud. In the present case, there is no allegation of fraud and the only allegation is that the award is perverse.” 6. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that at the time of filing of present petition, petitioner Insurance Company had limited right to assail the impugned award, as present petition has been filed prior to pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 509 and therefore, petitioner was not having any alternative remedy to assail quantum of compensation awarded in impugned award, rather only available remedy to petitioner was present petition and thus petition be decided on merit. 7. Learned counsel for respondent submits that accident had occurred in the year 2008 and respondent No. 1/claimant is waiting for her lawful claim for last eight years. Claim petition was also decided in the year 2010 and for more than last six years, present petition is pending in this Court and therefore, he has prayed that despite the fact that alternate remedies are available to petitioner under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act to assail the impugned award by filing an appeal, present petition may be decided on merits in the interest of justice and for benefit of poor respondent No. 1/claimant, who is suffering for non release of amount in her favour due to pendency of present lis challenging the award passed in her favour by the MACT. 8. 8. In similar matter coordinate bench of this Court had dismissed CWP No. 542 of 2011 vide judgment dated 24th April, 2012, titled ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sh. Hem Raj and another, being non-maintainable. The said judgment was assailed in LPA No.269 of 2012 and Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 6th December, 2012 had decided the issue in dispute between parties on merits leaving the question of maintainability of writ petition against the impugned award open. 9. Issue involved in present petition can be adjudicated and decided on the basis of material placed on record and pleadings of parties. Self imposed restriction/rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction on account of availability of alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to entertain a writ petition. It is a rule of discretion to be exercised depending upon facts of each case. I am of the opinion that in facts and circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to adjudicate the dispute between parties herein present petition on merits on equitable ground as respondent No. 1/claimant is being deprived of the fruit of award passed in her favour in the year 2010 and relegating the parties to another round of litigation for adjudicating the matter under the remedy available to petitioner-company under Motor Vehicles Act would result into undue harassment and grave hardship to respondent No. 1/claimant for no fault on her part. Therefore, in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, especially in the interest of claimant, I proceed to decide this petition on merits by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, without going into question of alternative remedy available to petitioner to assail the impugned award. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner-Company submits that present award deserves to be interfered with for the reasons that there is no positive evidence on record that respondent No. 1/claimant was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and disability suffered by respondent No. 1 is 42%, whereas she has been awarded compensation by considering her working disability as 60%. It is further submitted that as PW-2 Laxmi Ram, appearing for respondent No. 1, had himself stated that respondent No. 1/claimant belonged to IRDP family and therefore, her income cannot be considered as Rs. 10,000/- per month at any stretch of imagination. 11. It is further submitted that as PW-2 Laxmi Ram, appearing for respondent No. 1, had himself stated that respondent No. 1/claimant belonged to IRDP family and therefore, her income cannot be considered as Rs. 10,000/- per month at any stretch of imagination. 11. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/claimant has supported the award passed by the MACT on the ground that there is no evidence on record that respondent No. 1/claimant belonged to IRDP family except irrelevant bald assertion of PW-2 without any substantial material and no such suggestion was put to her. Further that petitioner company has not disputed income of respondent No. 1/claimant as Rs.10,000/- during her cross-examination. He also submits that in given facts and circumstances of a case working disability of a person may be more or less than percentage of physical disability and in present case, respondent No. 1/claimant has suffered 42% physical disability of lower limb which definitely affects her working ability more than percentage of disability of the said limb and further submits that working disability taken as 60% by the MACT is on lower side, whereas for lower limb with 42% disability, working disability of a person will be more than that of 60%. 12. Though there is no positive evidence on record to establish that respondent No. 1 was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month at the time of accident, however, at the same time contention of petitioner-Company is also not tenable that at the time of accident respondent No. 1/claimant belonged to IRDP family as self stated hazy line of PW-2 Laxmi Ram is not sufficient to hold that respondent No. 1/claimant was in IRDP at the time of accident or at the time of his making statement. There is no document on record showing that respondent No. 1/claimant was in IRDP family at the time of accident or even thereafter. 13. So far as working capacity of respondent No. 1 is concerned, same has rightly been determined by the MACT, because working disability cannot be equal to percentage of physical disability of a person in every case. Working disability will vary in each case irrespective of percentage of physical disability depending upon loss of limb or damage to part of the body and also nature of work performed by victim. Working disability will vary in each case irrespective of percentage of physical disability depending upon loss of limb or damage to part of the body and also nature of work performed by victim. In facts and circumstances of the case working disability may be lesser and even negligible than physical disability and in some cases, lesser physical disability may have larger effect on working disability of a victim. In present case, there is disability of lower limb to the extent of 42% and in life, for every movement, a person depends upon lower limb. Therefore, even 60% disability may be considered to be taken on the lower side, but as there is also no positive evidence for establishing extent of working disability of respondent No. 1/claimant, in my opinion on the basis of guess work, the MACT has rightly taken the working disability as 60%. 14. In Arun Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others (2010) 9 SCC 218 , the Apex Court, for an accident occurred prior to 2003, has considered income of a housewife as Rs. 5,000/-. Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Ganguly, J. in his concurring conclusion/paras, has observed as under:- “41. Despite the clear constitutional mandate to eschew discrimination on grounds of sex in Article 15 (1) of the Constitution, in its implementation there is a distinct gender bias against women and various social welfare legislations and also in judicial pronouncements. ……………………………… 44. This bias is shockingly prevalent in the work of Census. In the Census of 2001 it appears that those who are doing household duties like cooking, cleaning of utensils, looking after children, fetching water, collecting firewood have been categorized as non-workers and equated with beggars, prostitutes and prisoners who, according to Census, are not engaged in economically productive work. As a result of such categorization about 36 crores (367 million) women in India have been classified in the Census of India, 2001 as non-workers and placed in the category of beggars, prostitutes and prisoners. This entire exercise of Census operation is done under an Act of Parliament. ……………………………… 49. Work is very vital to the system of gender reconstruction in societies and in this context masculine and feminine work is clearly demarcated. The question which obviously arises is whether Census definition of work reflects the underlying process of gender discrimination. 50. This entire exercise of Census operation is done under an Act of Parliament. ……………………………… 49. Work is very vital to the system of gender reconstruction in societies and in this context masculine and feminine work is clearly demarcated. The question which obviously arises is whether Census definition of work reflects the underlying process of gender discrimination. 50. Women are generally engaged in homemaking, bringing up children and also in production of goods and services which are not sold in the market but are consumed at the household level. Thus, the work of women mostly goes unrecognized and they are never valued. Therefore, in the categorization by the Census what is ignored is the well known fact that women make significant contribution at various levels including agricultural production by sowing, harvesting, transplanting and also tending cattles and by cooking and delivering the food to those persons who are on the field during the agriculture season.” 15. In absence of other evidence on record, Rs.5,000/- per month income of house wife was considered to be appropriate for an accident occurred prior to 2003. In present case date of accident is 11.12.2008. Even it is considered that respondent No. 1/claimant was performing work equivalent to a labourer then also her earning is to be considered that of a labourer. In the year 2003 earnings of house wife were taken as Rs.5,000/-. In the year 2010, this earning is bound to be increased 30% to 50% i.e. Rs.6,500/- to Rs.7,500/-. In the year 2010, daily wage of a labourer was more than Rs.200/- per day i.e. more than Rs.6,000/- per month. Even considering earning of respondent No. 1/claimant on lower side, it would be appropriate to consider it to be Rs.6,000/- per month. 16. Considering income of respondent No. 1/claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month, loss of income suffered by her comes to be Rs.3,600/- per month. The MACT has rightly applied multiplier of 11 and after applying this multiplier, loss of future income comes to be Rs.4,75,200/-. 17. The amount awarded under the heads of amount spent on medicines and in hospital and also for pain and sufferings warrants no interference. However, keeping in view nature of disability, particularly lower limb of the body, respondent No. 1 will definitely face difficulty in movement and some extra care and arrangement causing some extra expenditure for her movement, will be required. However, keeping in view nature of disability, particularly lower limb of the body, respondent No. 1 will definitely face difficulty in movement and some extra care and arrangement causing some extra expenditure for her movement, will be required. Therefore, under head of transportation, besides Rs. 20,000/- spent during the treatment, Rs. 10,000/- also required to be granted for future expenses to be incurred for her movement in life. Besides this, respondent No. 1/claimant is also entitled for loss of enjoyment of amenities to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- 18. At the time of filing petition and also at the time of leading evidence by way of affidavit, respondent No. 1 has clearly stated that she was under treatment at that time. The MACT has awarded Rs. 80,000/- for amount spent on medicine and also amount of Rs. 10,000/- with respect to amount spent in hospital, but nothing has been awarded for undergoing treatment and for future treatment. Therefore, respondent No. 1/claimant is also entitled for Rs. 20,000/- for future treatment and care. 19. In view of above discussion respondent No. 1/claimant is held entitled for following amount of compensation:- 1. Loss of income Rs.4,75,200/- 2. Amount spent on medicines Rs.80,000/- 3. Amount spent in hospital Rs.10,000/- 4. Amount for future treatment and care Rs.20,000/- 5. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- 6. Loss of enjoyment and amenities Rs.30,000/- 7. Transportation including future Expenditure for life time Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.7,45,200/- 20. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner company that the MACT has awarded interest @12% per annum in the year 2010, which was on higher side at the relevant point of time. Considering the date of filing of petition as well as decision of claim petition, it would be appropriate to award interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, instead of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation. 21. Impugned award is modified in above terms. Needless to say that respondent No. 1/claimant is also entitled to the cost of petition to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- assessed by the MACT. 22. 21. Impugned award is modified in above terms. Needless to say that respondent No. 1/claimant is also entitled to the cost of petition to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- assessed by the MACT. 22. Registry is directed to calculate the amount adding interest to which respondent No. 1/claimant is entitled on the basis of modified award and the said amount along with up to date proportionate interest be released in her favour by remitting the same in her saving bank account, to be furnished by her counsel and the excess amount, if any, along with up to date proportionate interest, shall be refunded to the petitioner-company by remitting the same to its bank account, particulars of which shall be furnished by its counsel. Petition stands disposed of in above terms along with pending application (s), if any.