JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J. Heard Mr. I. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Rana, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The brief fact of the appellant's case in a nutshell is that: "This is an appeal against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shillong in MAC Case No. 32 of 2009. That the related claim case has been filed by the claimant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident that had taken place on 20.07.2009 at 2.15 pm at Puriang National Highway, Jowai - Shillong Road claiming an amount of Rs.6,10,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs Ten Thousand). The brief facts of the case is that on 20.07.2009 at 2.15 p.m. at Puriang National Highway, Jowai - Shillong Road, the claimant Shri. Lancio Mawrie while walking by the side of the road along with another person namely Shri. Sunshine Marboh suddenly one empty truck bearing no.AS-21K/7499 proceeding towards Shillong side and when it reached Puriang, the wooden plank of the truck came out suddenly with force and first fell upon the claimant and then also hit the other person namely Shri. Sunshine Marboh. That being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Shillong in MAC Case No. 32 of 2009 towards awarding an exhorbitant amount in respect of a simple injury case the Appellant has preferred the instant appeal on various grounds, viz., i. The income of the Claimant respondent was taken as Rs. 5,000/- p.m only upon assumption. ii. The age of the Claimant respondent was taken as 24 years on assumption. iii. Exhorbitant amounts awarded under Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary heads. iv. The driving license of the driver of the insured vehicle was fake at the time of the accident". 3. In this instant case, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Tribunal after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties awarded Rs. 6,10,000/- (Rupees six lakhs ten thousand) only, to the respondent, which is exorbitantly high besides that, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record and awarded the amount whimsically. Hence, this appeal and prayed that the impugned award dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC. 6,10,000/- (Rupees six lakhs ten thousand) only, to the respondent, which is exorbitantly high besides that, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record and awarded the amount whimsically. Hence, this appeal and prayed that the impugned award dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC. Case No. 32 of 2009 may be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Sr. counsel for the respondent submits that the award is in accordance with the M.V. Act, 1988 under the circumstances which is very much correct and reasonable. So, the appeal may be dismissed. 5. To answer the issues raised by the learned counsels, whether the award is exorbitantly high, let me examine the evidence recorded by the learned Tribunal Court: From the evidence of C.W. 1, Smti. Maryland Mawrie (mother of the victim) it appears that the victim, Shri Lancio Mawrie met with an accident on 20.07.2009 at around 2:15 P.M. He is working in a Petrol Pump as a 'Pump Boy' and he was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and there is no rebuttal notice in the cross-examination. From her evidence it also appears that the age of the victim was 24 years and she had other five school going children and she used to depend on the income of the victim who used to contribute Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) only per month. From the evidence of C.W. 2 Shri Lancio Mawrie, it appears that he is unemployed and residing at home and confirmed the accident as well as the income and there is no rebuttal notice pertaining to the accident, income as well as his contribution towards the family. From his evidence it also appears that the offending vehicle was travelling at high speed and hit the victim, further his evidence also confirmed that he used to work as a 'Pump Boy' at the Petrol Pump. C.W. 3 deposed that she has reported the accident to the police and in her evidence, she reconfirmed that the victim was working in the Petrol Pump. From the evidence of C.W. 4 it is clear that he used to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only per month as he used to work in his Petrol Pump. C.W. 3 deposed that she has reported the accident to the police and in her evidence, she reconfirmed that the victim was working in the Petrol Pump. From the evidence of C.W. 4 it is clear that he used to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only per month as he used to work in his Petrol Pump. From the evidence of C.W. 5 the doctor, it is clear that the chances of recovery from such injuries cannot be ascertained, as it is not clear whether he may or may not recover and may remain in the same state throughout his life. From his evidence, it is also clear that he has developed a weakness on the right side of the body, cannot speak normally and also has behavioral changes. C.W. 7 is the I/O who has described about the accident and also mentioned that the licence of the driver was found to be genuine and valid. 6. After scanning of the evidence recorded by the learned Tribunal below, two points are sure before this Court, firstly, there was an accident and due to the said accident, the victim suffered irreparable loss and secondly, it is also clear that he may or may not recover and there is a change in his physical movement, thereby he has lost his working capacity and as a result, he may need treatment throughout his life and he is also unable to support his mother and his brothers and sisters. 7. I have also examined the amount awarded and come to the conclusion that the awarded amount is justified and there is nothing wrong in it. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC. Case No. 32 of 2009. The appellant is further directed to make the payment as per the impugned award dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. 8. The Registry is directed to return the Lower Court case record to the concerned Court along with a copy of this judgment and order. 9. With this observation and direction the appeal is dismissed and stands disposed of.