JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act"), lays challenge to award dated 25.8.2018, passed by the learned MACT (I) Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in MAC No. 371 of 2013, whereby sum of Rs. 14,80,700/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its deposit came to be awarded in favour of complainant respondent No.1. Since appellant Insurance Company being insurer came to be directed to pay the compensation, it has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside the impugned award. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that on 27.11.2012, respondent-claimant (herein after referred to as "the claimant"), who at that relevant time was going on his motor cycle bearing registration No. HP-19-3694 suffered multiple injuries after being hit by truck bearing registration No. PB-07-AF-2137 being driven by respondent No. 3 i.e. driver. After the aforesaid alleged incident claimant was taken to hospital at Gagret, from where he was referred to Regional Hospital Una. Record reveals that on account of serious injuries suffered by the claimant, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admitted w.e.f 28.11.2012 to 14.1.2013. In the aforesaid background, claimant, who, at the time of the alleged incident, was pursuing his engineering studies filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, praying therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 30 lac. 3. Claimant claimed before the Tribunal below that he spent approximately Rs. 7.00 lac on medical treatment and besides this, two attendants remained with him throughout. Claimant also claimed that since he has lost complete one year of studies, huge financial loss has occurred to him and as such, he is liable to be compensated. FIR No. 98 dated 27.11.2012, came to be registered at PS Gagret against respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 i.e. driver of the truck, by way of filing reply refuted the claim of the petitioner-claimant and alleged that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-claimant and as such, he is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Respondent No.2 Balwinder Singh i.e. owner of the vehicle by way of separate reply claimed that respondent No.3 as well as his truck has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. Respondent No.2 Balwinder Singh i.e. owner of the vehicle by way of separate reply claimed that respondent No.3 as well as his truck has been falsely implicated in the case. Appellant-Insurance company refuted the claim of the claimant before the court below on the ground that at the time of alleged incident respondent No.3 was not having valid and effective Driving License and since offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is not liable to indemnify the insurer. Appellant-Insurance company further alleged that the petitioner-claimant has filed claim petition in collusion with respondents No.2 and 3. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, following issues were framed by the Court below: 1. Whether the Akhilesh, petitioner-claimant sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, on 27.11.2012, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is answered in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation. If yes, to what extent and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the respondent No.1 did not possess any valid and effective driving license to drive the truck at the time of alleged accident, as alleged? OPR-3. 4. Whether at the relevant time the vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01-AF-2137 was being plied in contraventions of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and provisions of M.V.Act, as alleged?OPR-3. 5. Whether at the time of the alleged accident the truck bearing No. PB-01-AF-2137 was not having any valid route permit, fitness certificate and registration certificate etc., as alleged ?OPR-3. 6. Whether the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged?OPR-3. 7. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged?OPR-3. 8. Relief. 5. Subsequently, court vide award dated 25.8.2018, while allowing claim petition filed by the claimant held him entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,80,700/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its deposit. Since appellant insurance company came to be directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation, it has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned order. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. Since appellant insurance company came to be directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation, it has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned order. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this Court finds that precise challenge to the award impugned before this Court is on two grounds, first, since there were two conflicting opinions with regard to disability suffered by the claimant in the alleged incident, court below before determining the compensation ought to have summoned third expert as was prayed for by the appellant insurance company; second, monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- assessed by the court below is on higher side, especially when no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record on behalf of the claimant. Besides above, appellant insurance company has alleged that interest awarded by the court below is on higher side. 8. Since there is no dispute with regard to accident as well as injuries suffered by the claimant, this Court needs not go into that aspect of the matter in the instant proceedings. Similarly, there is no dispute that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. 9. True it is, as per record of the court below, two conflicting opinions came on record with regard to extent of disability suffered by the claimant in the accident. PW4 Dr. Parveen Kumar, who had examined the petitioner and issued MLC Ext.PW4/A specifically proved on record that in the alleged accident, claimant suffered grievous injuries, as a consequence of which, he has rendered disabled to certain extent. Dr. Munish Sharma, PW2 issued disability certificate dated 27.6.2015 and opined the disability to the extent of 25% with respect to the right hip/lower limb. It clearly emerges from the record that aforesaid witness explained to the court that pain of the claimant may subside or may remain on account of disability, which is temporary in nature, but he may not be able to do his day-to-day work normally. It clearly emerges from the record that aforesaid witness explained to the court that pain of the claimant may subside or may remain on account of disability, which is temporary in nature, but he may not be able to do his day-to-day work normally. Since in cross-examination, the aforesaid witness stated that disability was temporary in nature and he cannot say about the today's condition of the patient, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to send reference to CMO Una for getting the petitioner's condition examined through proper medical officer/Board. Pursuant to aforesaid reference made by the court below claimant was examined by Orthopedic Surgeon, who after examining the claimant submitted disability certificate Ext.CW1/A. Court after having perused aforesaid disability certificate summoned Dr. Tajinder Bansal, who had issued aforesaid certificate for examination. Dr. Tajinder Bansal while proving disability certificate dated 3.1.2018, testified before the court below that on examination, he found that claimant was having locomotive disability having right side avascular necrosis of right hip joint with protrusion, which is post traumatic. He specifically stated before the court below that in future, patient may require hip replacement surgery. In his cross-examination, aforesaid witness admitted that while rendering disability certificate dated 3.1.2018, he had not seen the record. However, while answering to court question that whether this kind of injury will affect the matrimonial life, he answered in affirmative. Aforesaid witness in further cross-examination by the insurance company stated that disability in the case of the petitioner may worsen but same can be reduced to certain extent by way of surgery. This witness admitted that temporary disability is a disability which may cease to exist after treatment after certain period of time. After recording of statement of aforesaid witness, it appears that appellant insurance company filed an application under Section 151 CPC, praying therein for permission to call another expert witness on account of two conflicting opinions available on record. However, such request made on behalf of the appellant insurance company came to be rejected and court below accepted the disability certificate issued by the Dr. Tajinder Bansal, who was examined as CW1. 10. Having carefully perused version put forth by Dr. However, such request made on behalf of the appellant insurance company came to be rejected and court below accepted the disability certificate issued by the Dr. Tajinder Bansal, who was examined as CW1. 10. Having carefully perused version put forth by Dr. Tajinder Bansal, whereby he opined the disability suffered by the claimant to the extent of 30%, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the award passed by the court below in as much as it took into consideration the disability of the claimant to 30 %. Since in the case at hand, court below with a view to have more clarity with regard to disability of the claimant made reference to CMO Una, there was no occasion thereafter for it to further send the matter to third expert, especially when Insurance Company was unable to point out that opinion rendered by Dr. Tajinder Bansal is contrary to the medical record and as such, no interference is called for as far as aforesaid aspect of the matter is concerned. 11. Similarly, this Court finds that in the case at hand, petitioner claimant specifically claimed before the court below that he is an engineering student and on account of accident, he has lost his complete one year. There is no iota of evidence led on record by the Insurance Company to rebut the aforesaid claim put forth by the claimant and as such, court below while assessing income of the petitioner claimant rightly considered him to be the student of engineering. Appellant insurance company claimed that since petitioner was student at that time, he had no income and as such, court below erred while assessing his monthly income to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- pm, however, aforesaid submission has no merit because it is well settled by now that computation of just and reasonable compensation is the bounden duty of the Tribunal while awarding compensation in those cases, where no specific income is proved. Reliance is placed on judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled G. Dhanasekar v. Managing Director, Metropolitan Trnasport Corporation Limited, (2014) 14 SCC 391 , relevant para whereof is reproduced herein below:- "13. As noted above, appellant is a driver operating a tourist taxi. Reliance is placed on judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled G. Dhanasekar v. Managing Director, Metropolitan Trnasport Corporation Limited, (2014) 14 SCC 391 , relevant para whereof is reproduced herein below:- "13. As noted above, appellant is a driver operating a tourist taxi. On account of the physical disability referred to above, it needs no elaborate discussion to hold that he would not be in a position to continue his avocation at the same rate, or in the same manner as before. He was aged 46 years at the time of accident. Therefore, we are of the view that it is a case where the appellant should be given just and reasonable compensation for his functional disability as his income has been affected. The court has to make a fair assessment on the impact of disability on the professional functions of the victim. In this case, the victim is not totally disabled to engage in driving. At the same time, it has to be seen that he cannot continue his career as earlier. In such circumstances, the percentage of physical disability can be safely taken as the extent of functional disability. In the assessment of the doctor, it is 35%. Since the appellant is compensated for functional disablement, he will not be entitled to any other compensation on account of physical disability or loss of earning capacity, etc. However, he is entitled to reimbursement towards medical expenses, etc." 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Arvind Kumar Mishar v. new India Insurance Company and Ors, (2010) 10 SCC 254 , which has been otherwise relied upon by the court below, considered the annual income of Rs. 60,000/- per annum in case of engineering student, who had completed bachelor of engineering from Birla Institute of Technology and was yet to get the employment. In the case at hand, petitioner was student of engineering and definitely, after completion of his engineering degree, would have got good job either government or private, but certainly, on account of disability suffered by him and loss of complete one year, many opportunities, which he would have got, have closed in his case and as such, court below rightly assessed his monthly income to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be on higher side. 15,000/- per month, which by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be on higher side. Similarly, interest part awarded by the court below @ 9 % p.a. cannot be said to be on higher side. 13. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the court below and as such, same is upheld. Present appeal fails and dismissed accordingly.