JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard, Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. L.H Lianhrima, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, for the respondent No. 2/owner of the accident vehicle. 1. The appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the MACT, Lunglei, in MACT No. 13/2007, stating that the learned Tribunal has not followed the 2nd Schedule of the M.V Act, 1988, while awarding compensation to the claimant, who was injured in a vehicular accident in the year 2007 and his permanent disability percentage was recorded as 50%-60%. The appellant's counsel submits that the compensation amount of Rs. 4,73,007/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is without any basis, keeping in mind the fact that the respondent No. 1 was a student. 2. The appellant's counsel submits that as the claim petition has been made under Section 163A of the M.V Act, 1988, compensation has to be awarded under the 2nd Schedule. The appellant's counsel also submits that the 2nd Schedule to the M.V Act, 1988 provides for payment of medical expenses up to Rs. 15,000/- only, as onetime payment. Thus, the medical expenses of the respondent No. 1, which is Rs. 73,007/-, would have to be limited to Rs. 15,000/- only, as the claim has been made under Section 163A of the M.V Act, 1988. 3. Mr. L.H Lianhrima, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submit that there is no infirmity with the decision of the learned Tribunal. They submit that though an amendment has been made to the 2nd Schedule vide Notification dated 22.05.2018, whereby compensation payable in cases of death and permanent disability under Section 163A has been amended, the amendment would be applicable only from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India, i.e., on 22.05.2018. This has also been held by this Court in the case of S.B.I General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smti. Laithanthuami & Another, MAC Appeal No. 19/2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2019. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. On perusing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the MACT, Lunglei in MAC Case No. 13/2007, this Court finds that the compensation amount of Rs. Ltd. v. Smti. Laithanthuami & Another, MAC Appeal No. 19/2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2019. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. On perusing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the MACT, Lunglei in MAC Case No. 13/2007, this Court finds that the compensation amount of Rs. 4,73,007/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal without giving any reasons for the same, that is to say that there is no break up made by the learned Tribunal, to show as to how the compensation amount could come to the figure of Rs. 4,73,007/-. As the evidence shows that the medical expenses of the respondent No. 1 was Rs. 73,007/-, it can be safely assumed that the amount of Rs. 73,007/- was a part of the total compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. However, as stated above, there is nothing to show as to how the learned Tribunal had awarded the remaining Rs. 4 (four) lakhs. It is settled law that Courts are to give reasons for their judgments and their findings have to be based on evidence and reasons. The only reason given by the learned Tribunal for awarding the compensation amount of Rs. 4,73,007/- is that "the amount claimed for is not exaggerated and is in fact meager". This Court accordingly finds that the reason given by the learned Tribunal for awarding the compensation amount is not based on any reason, as the 2nd Schedule to the M.V Act, 1988 should have been followed. In that view of the matter, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.04.2018 passed in MAC No. 13/2007 is hereby set aside. 6. As the claim has been made under Section 163A of the M.V Act, 1988, compensation would have to be awarded as per the 2nd Schedule to the M.V Act, 1988. The 2nd Schedule of the M.V Act, 1988 has been amended by the Central Government vide Notification dated 22.05.2018 and the amended 2nd Schedule came into effect from 22.05.2018. 6. As the claim has been made under Section 163A of the M.V Act, 1988, compensation would have to be awarded as per the 2nd Schedule to the M.V Act, 1988. The 2nd Schedule of the M.V Act, 1988 has been amended by the Central Government vide Notification dated 22.05.2018 and the amended 2nd Schedule came into effect from 22.05.2018. The same is reproduced below:- "S.O. 2022(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), the Central Government, keeping in view the cost of living, hereby makes the following amendment to the Second Schedule to the said Act, namely:- In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the Second Schedule, the following Schedule shall be substituted namely:- "The Second Schedule (See Section 163A) Schedule for Compensation for Third Party Fatal Accidents/Injury Cases Claims 1. (a) Fatal Accidents: Compensation payable in case of Death shall be five lakh rupees. (b) Accidents resulting in permanent disability: Compensation payable shall be = [Rs. 5,00,000/-x percentage disability as per Schedule I of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923)]: Provided that the minimum compensation in case of permanent disability of any kind shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees. (c) Accidents resulting in minor injury: A fixed compensation of twenty five thousand rupees shall be payable: 2. On and from the date of 1st day of January, 2019 the amount of compensation specified in the clauses (a) to (c) of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent annually". 3. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette." 7. Thus, in cases of accidents resulting in permanent disability, compensation under the amended 2nd Schedule as per the Notification dated 22.05.2018 has to be paid as follows : Rs. 5,00,000 x percentage disability as per Schedule 1 of the Employee's Compensation Act. The question to be decided here is whether the amendment of the 2nd Schedule as per the Notification dated 22.05.2018 would be applicable to cases involving motor accidents, which occurred prior to 22.5.2018. 8. 5,00,000 x percentage disability as per Schedule 1 of the Employee's Compensation Act. The question to be decided here is whether the amendment of the 2nd Schedule as per the Notification dated 22.05.2018 would be applicable to cases involving motor accidents, which occurred prior to 22.5.2018. 8. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Bijaya Bhuyan & Ors., (2018) 5 GauLT 72 , which was decided on 31.10.2018 and in MAC Appeal No. 10/2019, M.S United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. V.L Biakdiki & Anr., this Court vide its judgment & order dated 05.04.2019 has held that the amendment of the 2nd Schedule of the M.V Act, 1988, vide Notification dated 22.05.2018 relates only to a procedural matter and does not affect the rights of the parties. It thus held that the claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs as per the amendment to the 2nd Schedule made in the Notification dated 22.5.2018, even if the accident occurred prior to 22.05.2018. 9. However, in the case of S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smti. Laithanthuami & Another, MAC Appeal No. 19/2019, this Court vide order dated 26.07.2019 has held that the amendment to the 2nd Schedule made vide Memo No. S.O.2022(E) would be applicable only from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India, i.e. on 22.05.2018. 10. In the case of Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516 , the Apex Court has held that a pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or a smaller number of Judges. It thus held that not only the judgment of a larger strength is binding on a judgment of smaller strength, but the judgment of a coequal strength is also binding on a Bench of Judges of coequal strength. When a decision of a coordinate Bench passed earlier in point of time has not been considered by the later Bench, the latter judgment is per incuriam. Various other judgments of the Apex Court have held that a coordinate Bench cannot take a contrary view to an earlier decision made by a coordinate Bench, as judicial discipline warranted reference of the matter to a larger Bench, if the later Bench was having a different view than the law laid down by the earlier Bench. 11. Various other judgments of the Apex Court have held that a coordinate Bench cannot take a contrary view to an earlier decision made by a coordinate Bench, as judicial discipline warranted reference of the matter to a larger Bench, if the later Bench was having a different view than the law laid down by the earlier Bench. 11. Keeping the above in view, this Court finds that the judgments of this Court passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vijaya Bhuyan & Others (supra) and in MAC Appeal No. 10/2019, which were passed earlier in point of time, had not been considered by this Court in S.B.I General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smti. Laithanthuami & Another, MAC Appeal No. 19/2019. Accordingly, this Court holds that the order dated 26.07.2019, passed in S.B.I General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Laithanthuami & Another, MAC Appeal No. 19/2019 is per incuriam and this Court is bound by the judgment passed in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Vijaya Bhuyan & Others. Accordingly, this Court holds that the amendment of the 2nd Schedule can have retrospective effect in respect of pending claims and appeals, with respect to motor accidents prior to 22.05.2018. 12. Subsequent to the amendment of the 2nd Schedule as per the Notification dated 22.05.2018, the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 Amendment Act", has been published. Section 1 of the 2019 Amendment Act states as follows: "1. (1) This Act may be called the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision." As the Central Government has not appointed any date for the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, as required as per Section 1(2) of the 2019 Amendment Act, the same cannot be applied in the State of Mizoram as on date. 13. The evidence recorded shows that the petitioner's permanent disability was 50%- 60%. 13. The evidence recorded shows that the petitioner's permanent disability was 50%- 60%. The issue to be decided is whether the learned Tribunal and this Court could mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as given by the Doctors, as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 has held that what is to be assessed is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the insured. After assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of the percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings. Thus, the Apex Court held that while a Doctor can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability, the loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the learned Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. This is due to the fact that the same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 14. As this Court finds that the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the respondent No. 1 would have to be considered by the learned Tribunal, keeping in view the Judgment of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr (Supra) and the amended Second Schedule as per the notification dated 22.05.2018, this Court is of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh. 15. The learned Tribunal should also take into consideration the fact that the unamended 2nd Schedule to the M.V Act, 1988 limits the payment of medical expenses only up to Rs. 15,000/-. It should also be kept in mind that the respondent No. 1 has already received Rs. 2 lakhs from the appellant/Insurance Company. 16. In view of the reasons stated above, the case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh disposal, keeping in view the observations made by this Court. Consequently, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the MACT, Lunglei in MAC Case No. 13/2007 is hereby set aside. Send back the LCR. 17. 16. In view of the reasons stated above, the case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh disposal, keeping in view the observations made by this Court. Consequently, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the MACT, Lunglei in MAC Case No. 13/2007 is hereby set aside. Send back the LCR. 17. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- if any, should be returned back to the appellant/Insurance Company.