JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Tayongchuba, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. L.D. Nepolean, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Nuksungtila, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 directed against the judgment and order dated 03.06.2015, passed by the learned Member MACT, Dimapur in MAC Case No. 22/2012. 3. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the learned counsel representing the parties is that on 17.12.2011 there was head on collision between the vehicle driven by the respondent/claimant (a car) bearing registration No. NL-07/F-720, and a truck belonging to respondent No.2 bearing registration No. MN-04/A 1816 at 4th Mile, Dimapur at 7:30 P.M. Due to the accident the respondent No.1 suffered physical injuries which led to his physical disability of 66.16%. The injured persons who happened to be a lawyer by profession filed a claim petition being MAC Case No. 20/2012 before the learned MACT, Dimapur claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,51,374/- from both the owners of the offending truck, and the Insurance Company (i.e. the appellant) with whom the owner of the truck had valid Insurance Policy covering 3rd party. The case was contested both by the owner of the offending truck and the Insurance Company-appellant in this case. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties framed as many as 6(six) issues and awarded Rs. 30,48,000/-. However, the award was apportioned, between the claimant and the respondent 50/50 on the grounds that there was contributory negligence on the part of the respondent No.1/claimant. The issues were framed and the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal are reproduced here below verbatim:- “ISSUE No. I: 1. Whether the accident was caused due to the fault of the injured claimant? The Police report Ext-P-9 states that the accident occurred when the truck was overtaking a small car and collided with the Hyundai i 10 which was coming from the opposite direction. The MVI Report at Ext. P-10 states that the brake system in the truck B/R No. MN-04/A-1816 was not responding and the left brake pipe was found to be damaged. The MVI Report at Ext. P-10 states that the brake system in the truck B/R No. MN-04/A-1816 was not responding and the left brake pipe was found to be damaged. It is also stated that in the Hyundai Car it was found that the windshield, Bumper, Radiator, Front Grille, Front Shocker, both front doors and its assembly, Steering assembly, Side Fender, along with accessories like headlight and signal light were found damaged externally. The I.O. of the case has deposed that in a collision case there may be contributory negligence on the part of both drivers of the colliding vehicles. He also stated that he found that there was contributory negligence by the drivers of both the truck and the Hyundai Car. He also deposed that as per his observation the Hyundai i 10 was travelling with such speed that it had taken more damage than the truck. It is therefore ascertained from the deposition of the PW-2 and also the MVI Report that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant as well as the driver of the truck. As such I hold both the claimant and the truck equally was responsible and contributory is 50/50 resulting accident. ISSUE No. ii and iii; ii. Whether the claimant in an employee of RTS Legal Consultancy, D.C. Court Complex, Dimapur, Nagaland? And iii. Whether the claimant was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month? The claimed has deposed that he is an Advocate and an employee of R.T.S Legal Consultancy, D.C.Court Complex, Dimapur. He stated that as an Advocate he has no fixed income on monthly basis but used to earn a minimum of Rs.20,000/-p.m. an affidavit has been sworn by the claimant to this effect. It is not disputed that an Advocate does not have a fixed monthly income. It depends on the number of cases one takes up in a month and for any practicing advocate in a place like Dimapur normal income of Rs.20,000/- p.m is found to be a reasonable income for an Advocate. ISSUE No. iv: iv. Whether the vehicles involved in the said accident had all the requisite vehicular documents including Insurance Policy and was driven by a driver who possessed a valid and effective Driving Lincense at the relevant time? As far as the truck is concerned, Ext. P-1 is the vehicle Registration Certificate, Ext. P-2 is the Certificate of fitness, Ext. Whether the vehicles involved in the said accident had all the requisite vehicular documents including Insurance Policy and was driven by a driver who possessed a valid and effective Driving Lincense at the relevant time? As far as the truck is concerned, Ext. P-1 is the vehicle Registration Certificate, Ext. P-2 is the Certificate of fitness, Ext. P-3 is the Carrier Permit, Ext. P-4 is the Tax Receipts, Ext. P-5 is the Driving License of the truck driver, Ext. P-6 is the Insurance Policy and Ext. P-7 is the Driving license of Claimant. All the documents are found to be valid and effective. The Insurance policy ids valid upto 04.06.2012 and the temporary road permit No.323 is valid for the route Imphal to Guwahati via Kohima, Dimapur, Golaghat, Karbianglong, Nagaon and back from 14.12.2011 to 31.12.2011. The claimant has deposed that the Hyundai i10 No. NL-07/F7200 belonging to him is not insured and that he was driving the vehicle himself. ISSUE No. V: V. whether the claimant has suffered permanent disablement as a result of the accident. If so, whet is the percentage of disability? The claimant has deposed that he is not able to stand for a long time or walk without the help of crutches. This Tribunal vide order 21.03.2013 had directed the District Medical Board Dimapur to examine the claimant and assess the degree of disability in respect of the claimant. Accordingly, the Medical Board had issued the Disability Certificate (Ext. P-14) wherein the extent of disability was found to be 66.10%. Accordingly, this issue id decided in favour of the claimant and percentage of disability is taken to be 66.16%. ISSUE NO. vi: vi. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Claim Application? For so, to what extent and payable by whom? The claimant is entitled to compensation. The claimant has not produced any proof of age except the driving license where his date of birth is shown as 16.10.80, which means that claimant was 31 years old at the time of the accident. This is not rebutted by the respondent/O.Ps. Therefore as per the Second Scheduled of MV Act, multiplier of 17 is taken based on the age of the claimant. This Tribunal has taken the monthly income to be Rs. This is not rebutted by the respondent/O.Ps. Therefore as per the Second Scheduled of MV Act, multiplier of 17 is taken based on the age of the claimant. This Tribunal has taken the monthly income to be Rs. 20,000/-(rupees twenty thousand) only p.m. that the truck B/R No. MN-04/A-1816 was insured with the opposite party, United India Insurance Co Ltd, is not in dispute, and as such, the insurer has to satisfy the award. However, this Tribunal has also decided that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and therefore liability is apportioned and the insurer of the truck is held liable for only 50% of the compensation. The learned Advocate appearing for the Insurance submitted that as per evidence on record the case memos and bills amounts to Rs. 2,93,081/ only for medical treatment, and the Insurance denied any additional document having been received in regards to medical treatment, but record speaks otherwise as an additional medical document was again filed and the same is in record. On 19.01.15 this Tribunal passed as follows, parties present through learned counsels, Claimant filed additional documents, Fixing 02.02.15 for final argument. That the additional documents being medical treatment the same expenditures as supported by vouchers/receipt was counted and the medical treatment as per re-counting being made by this Tribunal in total comes to Rs.3,28,613/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen only) Having considered the nature of injury sustained by the claimant and expenditure incurred thereof and the facts and circumstances of the case, just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant would be entitled in the instant case is assessed as under:- 1. Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability: 66.16% of Rs. 20,000 X 12 X17(multiplier) Rs. 26,99,328/- 2. Medical expenses…. Rs.3,28,613/- 3. Pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- 4. Incidental expenses during treatment, Rs. 10,000/- Total amount is Rs.30,47,941/- rounded up to Rs. 30,48,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand) only. AWARD Thus 50% negligent contributory from total amount comes to Rs.15.24,000/- The Claimant is awarded Rs.15,24,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs twenty four thousand) which shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this order by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The amount paid as no fault liability shall be adjusted. 30,48,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand) only. AWARD Thus 50% negligent contributory from total amount comes to Rs.15.24,000/- The Claimant is awarded Rs.15,24,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs twenty four thousand) which shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this order by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The amount paid as no fault liability shall be adjusted. The OP Insurance company is directed to deposit the award in this Tribunal within one month from the date of this order. In default 9% interest p.a over the awarded amount shall be added from the date of this judgment Giving under my hand & seal of this Court on this the 3rd day of June 2015 at Dimapur”. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, the United India Insurance Company, i.e. the insurer of the offending truck has come to this Court assailing the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal mainly on the following grounds; (i) That the respondent No.1 as required under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 did not discharge his burden to prove contributory negligence of the driver of the offending truck. (ii) That the claimant did not prove his income. (iii) That the appellant/respondent was not given a chance to cross-examined the Doctor who issued the disability certificate. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tayongchuba that when an application is filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the burden is on the claimant/petitioner to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, in this case, the respondent/claimant has failed to discharge the burden, therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck is without any basis whatsoever. The learned counsel in support of his submission submitted the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Surender Kumar Arora and Another -versus- Manoj Bisla and Others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 552 , particularly, paragraph-9 of the judgment. The contents of the paragraph is reproduced here below;- ”9. Admittedly, the petition filed by the claimants was under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163-A of the Act. This is not in dispute. The contents of the paragraph is reproduced here below;- ”9. Admittedly, the petition filed by the claimants was under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163-A of the Act. This is not in dispute. Therefore, it was the entire responsibility of the parents of the deceased to have established that respondent no.1 drew the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the fatal accident. Maybe, in order to help respondent no.1, the claimants had not taken up that plea before the Tribunal. Therefore, High Court was justified in sustaining the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. We make it clear that if for any reason, the claimants had filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Act, then the dicta of this Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. (supra) would have come to the assistance of the claimants”. 6. The learned counsel also cited the case of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. -versus- Meena Variyal and Others reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 , particularly paragraph-27 of the same. The contents of the paragraph are reproduced here below:- “27. We think that the law laid down in Minu B. Mehta & Anr. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr. (supra) was accepted by the legislature while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by introducing Section 163A of the Act providing for payment of compensation notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section 163A of the Act, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. Therefore, the victim of an accident or his dependants have an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163A of the Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Section 163A of the Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle”. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that it is the duty of the claimant to prove his or her income but in this case the claimant who is a lawyer by profession only submitted a self declaration endorsed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, and that cannot be accepted as a proof of his income. The learned counsel in support of his submission cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others -versus- Mohammed Jameel andAnother reported in (2009) 2 SCC 225 , particularly at paragraph-14 and 21 of the judgment. They are reproduced here below:- “14. Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the person(s) liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. 21. In the instant case, the main grievance of the appellant is that the High Court erred in reducing the monthly income of the deceased from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. More so, when the claim of the appellants was that the deceased was earning about Rs.20,000/- per month. It needs little emphasis that insofar as the question of earnings of the deceased is concerned, the onus.” 8. More so, when the claim of the appellants was that the deceased was earning about Rs.20,000/- per month. It needs little emphasis that insofar as the question of earnings of the deceased is concerned, the onus.” 8. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellant was not given the opportunity of cross-examining the Doctor who issued the medical certificate, therefore, the certificate cannot be accepted as prove of the disability of the respondent/claimant. Thereafter, the learned counsel drew my attention to the statement of the respondent No.1/claimant given in his cross-examination and also submitted that the claimant himself by his statement had admitted that it was premature to issue disability certificate, therefore, the learned Tribunal should not have relied on such certificate in coming to the conclusion that the claimant has suffered 66.16% disablement. The learned counsel to buttress his submission cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Rajesh Kumar @ Raju -versus- Yudhvir Singh and Another reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305 , particularly paragraph-11 of the same. The contents of the paragraph-11 of the judgment is given here below:- “11. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time”. 9. Mr. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time”. 9. Mr. L.D. Nepolean, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.1/claimant submitted that in reply as follows; That the Traffic Police had recorded the happening of the accident and also had given evidence before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal based on the same had given his finding regarding the accident, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel also submitted that the District Motor Vehicle Department who had investigated over the offending vehicle had reported that there was failure in the brake system of the offending truck which caused the accident, therefore, no more prove is required on the negligence of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel further submitted that Advocates has no fix salary and their income depends on the volume of work they have, therefore, no one would have given a certificate on the exact income of the claimant. In such circumstances, the self certificate submitted by the respondent No.1/claimant which was authenticated by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has to be accepted, therefore, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in arriving at the quantum of income of the respondent/claimant. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the Medical Board was constituted on the direction of the learned Tribunal given in the order dated 21.03.2013, therefore, there was no need of cross examining the Doctor or Doctors who issued the certificate. 10. Ms. Nuksungtila, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there is no change in her submission on behalf of the respondents as submitted before the learned Tribunal. She also submitted that since the offending truck insured and the Insurance Policy was still valid at the time of the accident, the responsibility of the owner of the truck on the awarded amount has to be shifted to the Insurance company. 11. She also submitted that since the offending truck insured and the Insurance Policy was still valid at the time of the accident, the responsibility of the owner of the truck on the awarded amount has to be shifted to the Insurance company. 11. Now, reverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the proof of negligence it would be seen from the impugned judgment and order that the Police Officer who investigated the accident was examined and he had deposed that the accident happened due to the contributory negligence of both the drivers of the two vehicles which were involved in the accident. This, in my view has sufficiently proved the contributory negligence of both the driver of the offending truck and the car driven by the none other than the claim himself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited by the learned counsel had only stated that negligence has to be proved when the claim is made under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The evidence of the I.O. who investigated the incident has met the requirement. Regarding the income of the respondent/claimant, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant, no certificate regarding the income of a lawyer can be issued by anybody, therefore, self assessment certificate of the respondent/claimant himself which is authenticated by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur in whose Court he was practicing, therefore, is expected to know the number cases handled by the claimant has to be accepted. I may also add here that a lawyer who is in practice would not have continued in the profession if he was not earning at least Rs. 20,000/- In the absence of any evidence or rebuttal the self assessment certificate endorsed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has to be accepted. It is true that the respondent/claimant himself has stated in his cross-examination that it was premature for him to produce the disability certificate but it must be remembered that soon thereafter, the learned Tribunal by order dated 21.03.2013, had directed the District Medical Board, Dimapur to examine the respondent/claimant. And as per the direction a Medical Board was constituted and the respondent/claimant was examined and a certificate was issued and the same was submitted before the learned Tribunal. And as per the direction a Medical Board was constituted and the respondent/claimant was examined and a certificate was issued and the same was submitted before the learned Tribunal. I have seen the certificate issued by the Board issued on a proper format by the three Doctors who examined the respondent/claimant authenticated and signed by the Medical Superintendent of the District Hospital Dimapur. The certificate states that the respondent/claimant has suffered 66.16% disability. Since the respondent/claimant was examined by the Board constituted of experts, on the direction of the learned Tribunal, there was no need of calling the Doctors for cross-examination. The opinion of the Medical Board is expert opinion to assist the Court and there is no reason why their findings should be questioned. In view of the above discussion and conclusions, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.