JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. The judgment and award dated 16.02.2010 passed by the MACT, Tezpur in MAC Case No.109/2006 has been challenged by the Insurance Company in MAC App No.46/2013 seeking reduction of award. The claimant has filed MAC App No.175/2010 for enhancement of the award. 2. The undisputed facts which may be relevant for disposal of these appeals are that Shri Brojeswar Ghosh, husband of the claimant sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle No.AS 12B 4391 owned by M/S Shree Krishna Food Products and insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The claim petition was filed on behalf of the injured by his wife Rita Ghosh claiming compensation. The MACT, Tezpur passed an award of Rs.8,66,712/- which included Rs.2,16,712/- for cost of treatment, Rs.4,50,00 for loss of income due to sustaining disability, Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities of life, Rs.30,000/- for loss of expectation of life, Rs.50,000/- for discomfort or inconvenience, hardship, disappointment and frustration in life, Rs.20,000/- for attendant charge and Rs.50,000/- for pain, suffering and mental shock. 3. Aggrieved by the award, both the Insurance company and the claimant have preferred appeals as mentioned at the outset. 4. Learned Senior counsel Mr. S. Dutta for the Insurance Company and Mr. S.K. Singh for the claimant were heard. In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the sole question raised is that the injured travelling in vehicle was an employee of the owner of the vehicle and therefore, liability of the Insurance Company could not be more than the liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8/1923) in view of Section 147 of the MV Act and the award made by the Tribunal was much higher than such liability, which the Insurance Company was not liable to satisfy in terms of the policy. 5. 5. Proviso to Section 147(1) of the MV Act reads as under: Provided that a policy shall not be required— (i) To cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee— a. engaged in driving the vehicle, or b. if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or c. if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, (ii) to cover any contractual liability. 6. A plain reading of the above provisions of the MV Act clearly shows that in respect of death or bodily injuries sustained by the employees mentioned in clause (a) (b) and (c) to proviso (i), the liability under the statutory policy is limited to the extent of the liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 7. In the present case, evidently and admittedly the injured Brojeswar Ghosh was the employee of M/S Shree Krishna Food Products, who was also the owner of the offending vehicle. It is also apparent from the evidence and materials brought on record, that the injured was working under M/S Shree Krishna Food Products and his job was to oversee the catering business of M/S Shree Krishna Food Products. It was further elicited during cross-examination, that the injured was neither a driver nor a handyman in the offending vehicle. What therefore abundantly clear is that the injured though was an employee under the M/S Shree Krishna Food Products, he does not fall within the category of employees as enumerated in clause-(a), (b) and (c), inasmuch as, evidently he was travelling in the vehicle with the Food Products of his employer. Admittedly, the injured was not an employee of the offending vehicle as defined in proviso (1) of Section 147. He was evidently travelling in the vehicle as representative of his employer along with the goods. Admittedly, the injured was not an employee of the offending vehicle as defined in proviso (1) of Section 147. He was evidently travelling in the vehicle as representative of his employer along with the goods. Therefore, the liability arising due to the injury sustained by the injured/claimant would not be limited to the extent of the liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 8. In the above view of the matter, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as claimant) contended that while assessing the loss of earning due to disability, tribunal fell in error by not relying on the legal evidence brought on record and thereby, awarded a very low amount on account of loss of earning which is required to be enhanced. Further, contention of the learned counsel for the claimant was that the quantum of award granted by the learned trial court in respect of other heads were also very meager. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court, in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 389 , Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and Others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 267 , K Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another reported in (2012) 12 SCC 274 , and Syed Sadiq and Others –vs- Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735 , learned counsel further submitted, that while assessing the loss of income or loss of earning capacity because of physical disability, there cannot be a fixed standard. The loss of earning capacity may not necessarily be equal to the extent of physical disability. Therefore, while making the award for loss of earning due to disability, tribunal should taken pragmatic approach to compensate the loss of earning adequately, submits Mr. SK Singh. 10. In the present case, while assessing the loss of earning capacity, tribunal assumed functional disability of the injured to the extent of 100% relying on medical documents, and the testimony of CW-3, the doctor, who was examined by the claimant. Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 series show that initially the injured was treated at GNRC hospital and Exhibit-3 and exhibit-4 series show that he was treated in LBG Regional Institute of Mental Health (LGBRIHM), Tezpur. Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 series show that initially the injured was treated at GNRC hospital and Exhibit-3 and exhibit-4 series show that he was treated in LBG Regional Institute of Mental Health (LGBRIHM), Tezpur. The claimant examined CW-3, the doctor from the LGBRIHM and on the basis of the evidence of CW-3 and the medical documents issued from LGBRIHM, Tezpur, learned tribunal assessed the functional disability at 100%. 11. Mr. S Dutta learned senior counsel placing reliance on Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 submitted that since the major part of the treatment was rendered at GNRC Hospital, tribunal ought not to have relied upon the testimony of CW-3 and the documents issued from the LGBRIHM, without examining the doctor who attended the injured in GNRC Hospital. With regard to the proof of disability or issuance of disability certificate, Apex Court in Rajkumar (supra) held as under: 18. The tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accepted the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give “ready to use” disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily give liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the doctor who treated or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or discharge certificate will not proof of the extent of the disability stated therein unless the doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of the claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local hospitals/medical colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. 12. What therefore follows from the above ratio is that mere production of disability certificate or discharge certificate will not prove the extent of disability stated therein, unless the doctor who examined the injured or who assessed the disability is examined and tendered for cross-examination. 12. What therefore follows from the above ratio is that mere production of disability certificate or discharge certificate will not prove the extent of disability stated therein, unless the doctor who examined the injured or who assessed the disability is examined and tendered for cross-examination. In case, the tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence adduced, tribunal of its own can constitute a board for assessment of disability. The evidence and materials in the instant case would show, that the tribunal by order dated 4.8.2017, directed the Director of LGBRIHM, Tezpur, to examine the injured and to submit a report about his ailment including opinion as to his disability. What is therefore evident is that, the tribunal in the instant case was not satisfied with the materials brought on record and sought for further report and examination of the injured by the LGBRIHM, Tezpur. From the Exhibit-3 and Exhbit-4 series and the testimony of CW-3 Dr. Kongkon Pathak, it appears, that the injured was treated in LGBRIHM and certificate Exhibit-4(2) was also issued as per the direction of the tribunal. Evidently, the injured sustained severe brain injuries. According to CW-3, the injured would require lifelong treatment and he would remain lifelong dependent upon others unless some miracle happens. It has been stated by CW-3, that Neurology and Psychiatry test was conducted to assess the memory and function of the brain. Findings of such test were recorded in the report, proved as Exhibit-3(8). According to Cw-3, in simple language, the test disclosed that there was impairment of higher functions of the brain and all functions of brain were found inadequate. It has also been elicited during cross-examination of CW-3, the doctor, that functional system of the brain is unlikely to improve and it may not be productive again. It has also been stated by the doctor, that because of the impairment of the functions of the brain, the injured would be lifelong dependent on others. No doubt the experience shows, that in many cases, `ready to use’ medical certificates are often produced, which are sometimes not found to be genuine, but in the instant case, the injured was treated and examined by the doctors of well known reputed medical institute of the North Eastern Region and that too, at the instances of the tribunal. No doubt the experience shows, that in many cases, `ready to use’ medical certificates are often produced, which are sometimes not found to be genuine, but in the instant case, the injured was treated and examined by the doctors of well known reputed medical institute of the North Eastern Region and that too, at the instances of the tribunal. The doctor who examined the injured and issued such certificate has also been examined and extensively cross-examined by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the medical evidences brought on record, in my view leaves no room for doubt, that the injured became incapable of earning anything and would have to be dependent on others for rest of his life. Considering the above medical evidence, learned trial Court assessed functional disability to the extent of 100%, and in my considered view, such finding and decision of the learned tribunal, in respect of the functional disability of the injured, arrived at judiciously leaves no room for interference. 13. Now, coming to the question of assessment of loss of earning, it is admitted position, that the injured was an employee in the catering business of M/s Shree Krishna Food Products, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 in the claim petition. The claimant has produced Exhibit-5, the salary certificate issued by the respondent No.1 M/s Shree Krishna Food Products, wherein, monthly salary of the injured was mentioned as Rs.4,800/-. While assessing the loss of income, the tribunal did not rely upon the salary certificate, as the author was not examined and a notional income of Rs.3,500/- was assumed by the tribunal. Evidently certificate was given by none other than one of the respondent, who was also the employer of the injured. When a certificate was issued by the respondent and the respondent was served with notice in the proceeding by the MACT, and in his wisdom, the said respondent remained away from contesting the proceeding, the claimant cannot be faulted for not examining the author of Exhibit-5, who was none other than one of the respondent in the case. That apart, the tribunal should not go into the niceties of the rules of evidence in a proceeding for compensation under M.V. Act, unless the contents of the document is found to be absurd or an unreasonable one. 14. That apart, the tribunal should not go into the niceties of the rules of evidence in a proceeding for compensation under M.V. Act, unless the contents of the document is found to be absurd or an unreasonable one. 14. Looking from another angle, claimant adduced evidence, that the injured was an employee of Krishna Food Products, and he had to oversee catering business of M/s Shree Krishna Food Products and such evidence with regard to the occupation of the injured remained uncontroverted and unshaken. In view of the undisputed occupation of the injured, the monthly salary of Rs.4,800/- appears to be quite reasonable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal ought not to have rejected the legal evidence brought on record and assume a notional income on surmise and conjecture. It is to be borne in mind that notional income is normally adopted in case of non-earning member. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735 submitted that besides the income, 50% of the actual income ought to have been added as future prospect, which was also not added by the tribunal. In Syed Sadiqyue (supra), the Apex Court held that “therefore, considering that the appellant was self-employed and was 24 years of age, we hold that he is entitled to 50% increment in the future prospect of income based upon the principle laid down in Santosh Devi case.” I am in full agreement with the submission of the learned counsel, that since the injured has suffered 100% functional disability while assessing the loss of earning or loss of earning capacity, the claimant was entitled to an addition of 50% to the actual income as future prospect in view of the principle laid down in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Others reported in 2012(6) SCC 421 . Thus, I am of the view, that the claimant is entitled to enhancement of the award towards loss of earning. 16. Having considered the evidence brought on record, there was no reason to disbelieve that the monthly income of the injured at the time of the accident was Rs.4,800/- as mentioned in Exhibit-5. Thus, I am of the view, that the claimant is entitled to enhancement of the award towards loss of earning. 16. Having considered the evidence brought on record, there was no reason to disbelieve that the monthly income of the injured at the time of the accident was Rs.4,800/- as mentioned in Exhibit-5. Taking the age of the injured to be 36 years, as available in the medical documents, loss of earning of the injured in the instant case has to be assessed by applying multiplier 15. With the monthly income Rs.4800/- and addition of 50% as future prospect, loss of earning would be Rs.4800/- + Rs.2400/- × 12 × 15 = 12,96,000/-. 17. Learned tribunal granted medical expenses being special damage as per the documents produced and therefore, the claimant deserves no further enhancement towards medical expense. From the evidence of the doctor and also of the claimant, it is abundantly clear, that because of the nature of injury and the disability, the injured has become fully dependent on others. Learned tribunal granted a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges. In view of the evidence of the doctor and the claimant, that the injured would require an attendant for rest of his life, I am of the view that the award under the head attendant charge, needs enhancement. The tribunal has granted Rs.30,000/- as non pecuniary damage on account of loss of expectation of life. In view of the nature of injury and disability I am of the view that the claimant deserves enhancement on this count too. Tribunal did not grant any amount for future treatment. 18. The Apex Court in Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) laid down general principle to assess compensation in personal injury case which has been followed by the Apex Court in Sayed Sadiq. The Apex Court in Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar held as under: 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury case are the following: Pecuniary damages (special damages) (i) Expense relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had be not been injured, comprising: a. loss of earning during the period of treatment: b. loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. (ii) loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had be not been injured, comprising: a. loss of earning during the period of treatment: b. loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii) (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expense, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actual and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses – Item (iii) – depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non pecuniary damages- items (iv), (v) and (vi) – involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Court’s contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability – item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. 19. Thus keeping in view the principles laid down in Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) and the foregoing discussion, just and reasonable compensation that the claimant is entitled in instant case is determined as under: Medical expense : 2,16,712/- Loss of earning due to disability 12,96,000/- Loss of amenities in life: 50,000/- Loss of expectation: 50,000/- Future Prospect: 30,000/- Attendant charge : 2,00,000/- Pain and suffering: 50,000/- Total Medical Expense : 50,000/- Cost of litigation: 1,000/- TOTAL : 19,43,712/- 20. Along with the above award of Rs. Along with the above award of Rs. 19,43,712/-the claimant shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5%. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd being the insurer of the vehicle shall satisfy the award within 2 (two) months from this day. Tribunal shall release Rs.4,00,000 by account payee cheque in favour of the claimant Rs.50,000/- shall be fixed deposited in the name of the claimant for 6 months and rest of the amount including interest shall be fixed deposited for a period of one year in the name of the claimant in a nationalized bank. The appeal filed by the Insurance company stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed. 21. Send back the LCR.