Judgment and Order : 1. This is an appeal by the insurer of the offending vehicles bearing Nos. TR02-C-0257 (Maruti Van) and TR-01-B- 2616 (Maxi) namely the National Insurance Co. Ltd., challenging the judgment and award dated 29.08.2014 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 19 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. 2. The basic grounds of objection as projected in this appeal are (i) there is no cogent evidence in respect of income of the injured claimant, (ii) the vehicle was being plied on road without road permit and hence this constituted the breach of the contract relating to the indemnity and thereby, the insurance company would be absolved from the liability under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (iii) in absence of any opinion of the expert in respect of loss of functional ability from the accident, the determination of the tribunal on the disability for purpose of determining the loss of earning capacity cannot be sustained and (iv) the imposition of the penal interest is grossly beyond the competence of the tribunal inasmuch as Section 171 of the M.V. Act 1988 does not empower the tribunal to impose penal interest having retrospective effect for non-payment in time. 3. The facts relating to the accident that occurred on 18.03.2012 at about 12.30 hours while the claimant was traveling by the Maruti Van bearing No. TR02-C-0257 owned by the respondent No. 3, the injuries the claimant received in the said accident which the said vehicle met on Tilthai-Dharmanagar Road on collision with one Max Vehicle bearing No. TR-01B-2616 owned by the respondent No. 2 which was coming from the opposite direction with high and excessive speed and knocked the said Maruti Van loosing the control are not at all in dispute. From the said accident the claimant, the respondent No. 1, had suffered series of injuries. His right eye was damaged completely. He was immediately shifted to Shankardev Netralay, Guwahati. At the time of accident the injured was aged about 28 years and unmarried. The claimant-respondent has asserted that he was driver by profession and he used to drive a vehicle in the Water Resource Department at Dharmanagar. His monthly salary was Rs. 9000/- per month. 4. He was immediately shifted to Shankardev Netralay, Guwahati. At the time of accident the injured was aged about 28 years and unmarried. The claimant-respondent has asserted that he was driver by profession and he used to drive a vehicle in the Water Resource Department at Dharmanagar. His monthly salary was Rs. 9000/- per month. 4. The tribunal has observed, inter alia, in the judgment dated 29.08.2014 as under: “On the other hand the O.P. No. 1 proved some documents namely the registration of the vehicle being No. TR-01B-2612 as exhibit-A, its tax token valid up to 31.05.2013 as Exhibit-B, its fitness certificate valid up to 24.07.2013 from 24.07.2012 as Exhibit-C, another fitness up to 13.06.2012 from 13.06.2011 as exhibit-D, insurance policy of the said vehicle bearing No. 203002/31/11/6300000780 valid from 15.09.2011 t 14.09.2012 as Exhibit-e, the road permit of the vehicle dated 02.04.2012 valid up to 31.03.2017 as exhibit-F, pollution certificate of the vehicle valid up to 11.07.2012 to 10.01.2013 as exhibit-G, copy of driving license No. TRB0220070006397 lying in the name of Bipul Debnath as exhibit-H.” 5. From the para-8 of the said judgment it would appear that the appellant and the respondents No. 2-4 have clearly apprised the tribunal that they would not adduce any witness except what the O.P. No. 1, [the respondent No. 2 herein] had introduced in the evidence. 6. Even Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel however, did not make any endeavour to question the finding that for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. TR-01B-2616 [Max] by its driver the said accident occurred and the finding that the accident would not have taken place if the driver of the said offending vehicle were cautious. As such, liability of the accident has been squarely saddled with the said vehicle being No. TR-01B-2616 [Max]. The owner of the said vehicle, [the respondent No. 2 herein] had produced the valid insurance policy, the road permit, the pollution certificate and other relevant documents such as the fitness certificate etc. All those certificates were contemporaneous and valid on the day of the said accident. Since the other vehicle being No. TR-02C-0257[Maruti Van] has not been held responsible and the inquiry as is apparent from the records has not been therefore directed by the tribunal in respect of the said vehicle. All those certificates were contemporaneous and valid on the day of the said accident. Since the other vehicle being No. TR-02C-0257[Maruti Van] has not been held responsible and the inquiry as is apparent from the records has not been therefore directed by the tribunal in respect of the said vehicle. The issue that was framed may be reproduced hereunder: (i) Whether the claimant sustained injury in an accident occurred on 18.03.2012 at about 12.30/12.45 hours near Padmapur Market shed due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. TR-02B-2616? 7. Hence, the appellant cannot be allowed to contend that since no road permit for the vehicle bearing No. TR-02C-0257 (Maruti Van) was produced before the tribunal by the owner, the insurance company is not liable to pay the damage to the injured claimant even though vehicle was under the valid insurance coverage. Reliance has been placed on an Apex Court decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Vharathamma and Other, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4882 . But that decision of the Apex Court cannot be applied in the present context inasmuch as neither the appellant nor the other parties disputed that aspect of the matter in the tribunal in any manner. Resultantly, no issue was framed for inquiry by the tribunal. 8. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has contended further that there is no cogent evidence in respect of the income of the injured claimant, the respondent No. 1 herein. According to him, the following finding is bereft of cogent evidence: “The claimant in his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit, has stated that at the relevant time of accident he used to earn Rs. 9000/- per month as a driver by profession. But no document is proved as to his income. In absence of any cogent evidence income of the injured shall be calculated considering him as a skill labour. During the year 2012 a skill labour can earn Rs. 250/- to 300/- per day and thus in an average as skill labour could earn Rs. 9000/- per month if not more. In such a circumstanc4es it is quite reasonable that the claimant at least could earn Rs. 9000/- per month. Thus for the purpose of this claim case the monthly income of the claimant injured is assessed at Rs. 9,000/- annual income of the injured claimant is assessed at Rs. 9,000/- x12=1,08,000/-. 9. Mr. 9000/- per month if not more. In such a circumstanc4es it is quite reasonable that the claimant at least could earn Rs. 9000/- per month. Thus for the purpose of this claim case the monthly income of the claimant injured is assessed at Rs. 9,000/- annual income of the injured claimant is assessed at Rs. 9,000/- x12=1,08,000/-. 9. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has also contended that the injured claimant was in a position to place the best evidence in the inquiry he could have adduced the salary certificate from the employer, but he did not do so, rather for determination of his income he has relied on oral testimony. Thus, Mr. Gautam, has asserted that by accepting the testimony of the injured claimant in its entirety, the tribunal has committed a serious irregularity. To buttress his contention Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others v. Mohammed Jameel and Another reported in (2009) 2 SCC 225 , where the Apex Court has observed inter alia as under: “23. In our view, though the entries in the current account (Ext. p-38) of the deceased and his transactions with his client, namely, Vasu Agarbathi (Ext. P-23) may not per se be cogent evidence to determine the yearly or monthly income of the deceased from the business(es) he was carrying on, yet we feel that these are some indicators in support of the appellants’ plea that the business income of the deceased in the succeeding year could be more than what was declared form the year ended 31.03.1998. But it is again in the realm of speculation, particularly when, unlike income from salaries, earnings in a business may increase with the buoyancy in business and at the same time may diminish with a recession in trade. ******** ******* ******* 28. In the present case, no evidence was led on this point as well. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, on-third of the income in case he was married and on-half (50%) if he was a bachelor. Thus, there is no material on record warranting interference with the consistent view of both the courts below on the point”. 10. Thus, there is no material on record warranting interference with the consistent view of both the courts below on the point”. 10. The tribunal in absence of any documentary evidence in respect of the income has adopted an approach considering the injured claimant as the skilled labour. In this regard the valid driving license No. TR-W/S/N/D15753/KLS, (Exhibit-1) valid from 07.05.2005 to 06.05.2024 has been relied as the essential tool. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the monthly income ought to have been determined at Rs. 7,000/- per month not Rs. 9000/- as has been decided by the tribunal, even though Mr. S. Pandit, learned counsel has submitted that there is no infirmity in the finding of the tribunal. On the basis of the monthly income, the loss of income is to be re-determined, as there is no challenge against the multiplier chosen by the tribunal. The said multiplier therefore can be used for our purpose. Thus, the annual income of the claimant-respondent at the relevant point of time can be taken Rs. 84,000/- . 12. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has submitted that the finding in respect of disability cannot be sustained. The tribunal on the basis of the disability certificate dated 17.10.2013 (Exhibit-9) has observed as under: “The victim-claimant suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 30% in respect of sight capacity of the both eyes which reveals from the original disability certificate issued by District Disability Boa5rd, Kailashahar, North Tripura marked as Exhihbit- 9. As we know sight power diminishes gradually with the age. If there are injuries in the eyes, the ratio of damage in the sight power accelerates. The claimant is a driver by profession and due to eye problem being 30% total disability his capacity to drive will be affected materially. No person will engage him in driving a vehicle. So his disability will affect his income materially. So 30% of his disability should be considered as 20% as regards to his whole body. So far the purpose of this case this tribunal finds his disability to the extent 20% as regards to h is entire body.” 13. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has further submitted that in terms of the Schedule-I of the Employees Compensation Act 1923, such injury be deemed to cause 10% disability. So far the purpose of this case this tribunal finds his disability to the extent 20% as regards to h is entire body.” 13. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has further submitted that in terms of the Schedule-I of the Employees Compensation Act 1923, such injury be deemed to cause 10% disability. The tribunal, according to him, was in grave error determining 20% as the functional disability without any medical opinion. On this submission, this Court has appreciated what the injured claimant has stated in his deposition in the tribunal, which is as follows: “Due to accident my right eye has been damaged completely. In the Sankar Netralaya operation was done but I lost my eyesight of the right eye completely and have been passing my days in unbearable financial sufferings.” 14. The said statement has not been confronted by the appellant or the other respondents. Moreover, in the disability certificate as issued by the District Disability Board, the authority has clearly observed that the injured claimant has been suffering from low vision in both eyes, however, with a note that condition is progressive. Having regard to that observation and the occupation of the injured claimant i.e. the driver of the vehicle, this court does not find any infirmity whatsoever in the finding of the tribunal for adopting 20% as the functional disability. In respect of the other components there is no challenge from the appellant nor any appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant. 15. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel who appears for the appellant is absolutely correct where he contended that no penal interest can be imposed in exercise of power under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, no interest ought to have been awarded as the penal interest. 16. Having observed thus, this Court would proceed to redraw the compensation. On the annual income of Rs. 84,000/- if the multiplier 17 is applied, it comes to Rs. 14,28,000/- but the compensation would be to the extent of 20% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 2,85,600/-. This amount is for the loss of earning for suffering the disablement from the accident. That apart, Rs. 1,50,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 1,00000/- for loss of amenities in life and another Rs. 50,000/- as the cost for future treatment are due to the claimant-respondent. Thus, the total compensation is deduced at Rs. 5,85,600/-. 2,85,600/-. This amount is for the loss of earning for suffering the disablement from the accident. That apart, Rs. 1,50,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 1,00000/- for loss of amenities in life and another Rs. 50,000/- as the cost for future treatment are due to the claimant-respondent. Thus, the total compensation is deduced at Rs. 5,85,600/-. The said amount shall carry interest @7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 07.06.2012 till payment of the said amount. The penal interest as awarded by the tribunal stands quashed. 17. The appellant shall deposit the entire compensation with interest within a period of 2 (two) months in the tribunal below on deducting the amount that they have already paid. 50% of the total award shall be maintained in fixed deposit by the injured claimant in a nationalized bank initially for a period of 8 years. At his option, he may withdraw the interest on the said amount from the bank quarterly basis. The injured claimant, the respondent No. 1 herein, shall be entitled to withdraw the remainder of the awarded sum from the tribunal on proper identification. In terms of the above, it is directed that the injured claimant, the respondent No. 1 shall be allowed to withdraw the remainder of the sum without any further application. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. Draw the award accordingly. Send down the LCRs. Copies of this judgment and order be supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the claimant respondent No. 1.