JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment/award dated 31.8.2015 passed in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 81/2010 by the learned District Judge-II-cum-MACT, Bokaro, whereby, the Insurance Company is directed to draw an account payee cheque amounting to Rs. 12,99,700/- in the name of the claimants with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. The counsel for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company appeared and contested the case by filing written statement denying the income of the claimant and injuries sustained by him in the accident. He further submits that the driver of the vehicle did not possess any valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle. He also submits that the Insurance Company filed a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for permission to raise all defense and grounds, available to the owner of the vehicle, as the owner was in collusion with the claimant and was not contesting the case. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, arbitrary and absolutely illegal. He further submits that the disability certificate (Ext.7) was not duly proved in accordance with law and as such relying upon the same, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is illegal and perverse. He further submits that the mental retardation is not permanent disability as defined and envisaged under Section 142 of the M.V. Act, 1988. He also submits that in absence of any documentary proof of the income of the claimant, the learned Tribunal should have taken monthly income as per the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act @ Rs. 3000/- per month only. 4. The counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation as the claimant suffered major loss of his memory and mental balance and his is not in a position either to get further studies or teach students which he was doing prior to the accident. He further submits that Ext.7 is the original certificate issued from the office of the Civil Surgeon cum-CMO, Bokaro, Jharkhand, which is with regard to categorization and mental retardation shows I.Q 63% and permanent. He further submits that Ext.7 is the original certificate issued from the office of the Civil Surgeon cum-CMO, Bokaro, Jharkhand, which is with regard to categorization and mental retardation shows I.Q 63% and permanent. He further submits that from the documentary and oral evidence, it is evident that the claimant suffered 63% permanent disablement in the form, of mental retardation. He further submits that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was valid at the time of accident. He also submits that the Insurance Company has taken plea that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had got no valid driving licence thus the onus to prove this fact was also on the insurance company, but the insurance company has led no evidence on this issue. He also submits that in Ext.5, which is the original certificate of Jharkhand Academic Council, the date of birth of the claimant has been mentioned as 5.4.1988 therefore at the time of accident (14.10.2009), the age of the claimant was 21-22 years. He also submits that the complainant in his evidence has supported his case that the claimant was earning Rs.6000/- per month as he used to provide tuition to students in group and this fact has also been supported by the other witnesses. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, has framed eight issues, which are as follows: (i) is the suit is maintainable in its present from? (ii) Had there accident taken place on 14.10.2009 by the Truck bearing registration No. JH-10D-6895 by rash and negligence driving causing serious injury/permanent disablement of Manoj Kumar? (iii) Whether the vehicle was insured at the time of accident? (iv) Whether the injured sustained the percentage of permanent disability keeping in view the nature and extent of injury. If so what shall be the percentage of functional disability in view of the physical/mental disability suffered? (v) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the claimant? (vi) Whether the driver of offending vehicle had got valid and bona fide driving licence? (vii) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as claimed for? (viii) Whether the claimant is entitled for any other relief or reliefs. The applicants in support of their case have also adduced five witnesses. The applicants have also got exhibited several documents in support of this case. 6. I have heard the parties and perused the record. (vii) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as claimed for? (viii) Whether the claimant is entitled for any other relief or reliefs. The applicants in support of their case have also adduced five witnesses. The applicants have also got exhibited several documents in support of this case. 6. I have heard the parties and perused the record. It is the case that on 14.10.2009, at about 9:00 a.m. the claimant who was a student of B.A. (Honours) was going by his bicycle to appear in the examination of B.A. (Hons.) and when he reached near Chas Block at Bihar Delhi Transport, a Truck bearing Registration No. JH 10D 6895 which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed him, as a result of which, he sustained head injury for which he was treated at different places and still his treatment is continuing. 7. After notice, the owner of the vehicle appeared but as he did not file the written statement, he was debarred from filing the same. The case was fixed for ex-parte hearing against the driver of the offending vehicle as after notice he did not appear. The Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement. 8. From the evidence and documents available on record, the tribunal has held that the accident had taken place on 14.10.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing Registration No. JH-10D-6895. The Tribunal has also held that functional disability of the claimant was also I.Q. 63% which is also supported the Ext.7 i.e. the Mental Retardation Certificate. The tribunal has also held that at the time of accident, the offending truck was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has taken plea that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had got no valid driving licence, but the insurance company has failed to prove this fact as no evidence has been led by the insurance company on this point. Ext.5, which is the original certificate of Jharkhand Academic Counsel of the claimant, shows that at the time of accident, the age of the claimant was 21-22 years. The tribunal, relying upon the statement of the witnesses, has also held that at the time of accident, he was earning Rs. 6000/- per month from tuition to students in group. Ext.5, which is the original certificate of Jharkhand Academic Counsel of the claimant, shows that at the time of accident, the age of the claimant was 21-22 years. The tribunal, relying upon the statement of the witnesses, has also held that at the time of accident, he was earning Rs. 6000/- per month from tuition to students in group. Accordingly, applying multiplier ‘18’ as well as other aspects, the tribunal came to a conclusion that Rs. 12,99,700/- will be the just and proper compensation, which the claimant is entitled to receive. The aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal is based on evidences on record. Thus, I hold that the tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased and thus the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is correct. 9. The appellant took a plea that Ext.A (the insurance policy) was issued in the name of one Montu Kumar, who, latter on, transferred the vehicle to Raju Verma (respondent No. 2 to this appeal), but did not transfer the insurance certificate to him, thus, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. On the aforesaid issue, the tribunal held that as per Section 157 of the M.V. Act, if the ownership of the vehicle is transferred, the insurance certificate together with the policy shall also be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the transferee from the date of its transfer. Thus, the Tribunal has held that in view of the provision of Section 157 of the M.V. Act, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award of Rs. 12,99,700/- along with interest @ 11% per annum. I find no illegality in the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal, preferred by the Insurance Company, is dismissed.