JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner as well as Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. 2. The appellant, Insurance Company i.e. the insurer of the alleged offending vehicle AS01C/3955 has challenged the award passed by the Learned Member MACT, Tinsukia in MAC Case No 134/2011 awarding compensation of Rs.10,77,026/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand and Twenty Six) in favour of the injured victim Om Prakash Rimal. 3. The brief fact of the case is that father of the victim Ram Prasad Rimal as claimant filed a claim case u/s 166 MV Act, 1988 before the MACT, Tinsukia seeking compensation on account of permanent disability of his son Om Prakash Rimal in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 27/10/2010. It is alleged that on the date of incident at about 11 A.M. while the victim was coming by riding his bicycle from Daragaon to Chepakhowa Town, one Maruti Van bearing no AS10C/3955 coming from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the victim from behind as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his person. The injured was immediately taken to Sadiya Civil Hospital Chepakhowa but subsequently he was shifted to AMCH, Dibrugarh wherein he was treated as an indoor patient. The factum of accident has not been challenged in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the learned Trial Court had erred in law as well as in fact directing the present appellant to make payment of the entire amount of compensation as there was no valid and affective driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle in the accident. In absence of valid driving licence, there was no liability of the insurance company. It is also his submission that learned Tribunal had erred not only in not exonerating the present appellant from any liability but also in not discussing the issue in the Judgment. 5. The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Trial Court has erred in considering alleged disability of the victim as deposed by the doctor and also alleged consequent loss of earning capacity without any materials to show as to how the alleged injuries/ disabilities had affected the service condition he was allegedly doing at the time of accident. It is also argued that the award amount is not only illegal but also arbitrary and suffers from non application of mind and the award of compensation passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be interfered with. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following case law – 2013 (3) T.A.C. 29 S.C. (United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Sujata Arora and others). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has submitted that the insurance company did not take the plea in the written statement that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident and the insurance company also failed to prove the fact as well by producing any document or adducing any evidence as such the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the claimant has cited the following case laws – 1. (2019) 5 Gauhati Law Reports 492 (Labakanta Mili and others v. New India Assurance Company Ltd) 2. (2018) 5 SCC 762 (Shivawa and another v. National Insurance Company Ltd) 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Judgment of the Trial Court as well as the documents available on record. 8. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Lehru reported in (2003) 3 SCC 338 , it was observed that the owner at the time of hiring a driver has to check as to whether the driver posses a driving licence, if the driver produces a driving licence, which on the face of it, appears to be genuine then the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has actually been issued by the competent authority or not; If the owner finds that the driver is competent enough, then he will hire the driver. Therefore, it was observed that where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently then there would be no breach of section 149(2)(a)(ii) of Motor Vehicle Act, the insurance company then will not be absolved of its liability even if the driving licence turns out to be fake. Therefore, it was observed that where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently then there would be no breach of section 149(2)(a)(ii) of Motor Vehicle Act, the insurance company then will not be absolved of its liability even if the driving licence turns out to be fake. Unless and until it is proved that the owner/insured was aware of the fact that licence was fake and despite that such person was permitted to drive the vehicle. 9. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 , after considering the previous Judgments on the issue, the Hon’ble Apex court held that defence of licence held by the person driving the vehicle was fake, is available to insurance company but insurer has to establish wilful breach of the insured which will have to be determined in each case. 10. The question was again considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company Limited reported in (2013) 10 SCC 217 , wherein after noticing Lehru’s case, Swaran Singh’s Case and Lakshmi Dutt’s case, it was observed as under – “In a claim for compensation it is certainly open to the insurer u/s 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter, he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver if satisfies in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of the insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence dully verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take the appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh’s Case (Supra). If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable for the compensation”. 11. Applying the above law to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the appellant insurance company had not taken the plea at the time of filing the written statement before the Trial court that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The driving licence of the driver was not exhibited in the Trial Court. The copy of driving licence is also not available in the record of MAC case no 134/2011. In support of its case, the insurance company adduced one witness, D.W-1 Manash Bordoloi who is the employee of appellant Insurance Company. From his examination-in-chief, it reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing no AS01C/3955 (Maruti Van) has submitted a fake driving licence before the tribunal. The driving licence being no 681/NB/2008/private which was issued by District Transport office, Nalbari, Assam, in the name of one Hari Prannal Dutta Thakuria valid up to 16/04/2030 but not in the name of Mritunjoy Deori, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. As such the insurance company has no legal liability to pay any compensation. The witness also exhibited one Xerox copy of RTI report (vide Ext-A) regarding driving licence being no 681/NB/2008/private. 12. As such the insurance company has no legal liability to pay any compensation. The witness also exhibited one Xerox copy of RTI report (vide Ext-A) regarding driving licence being no 681/NB/2008/private. 12. It also appears from the MAC case no 134/2011 that though evidence on affidavit of D.W-1 was filed before the MACT, Tinsukia but subsequently D.W-1 had not appeared before the Tribunal to face cross examination and the Trial Court accordingly delivered the Judgment. Apparently, the affidavit submitted by DW1 has no probative value in the eye of law. 13. I have gone through Exhibit-A i.e. information of driving licence under RTI Act which was issued by MVI, Nalbari to one Kabindra Deka, investigator. In the body of exhibit A it is written that with reference to the subject cited above, the following information was furnished regarding driving licence as per available office records:- a. Driving licence no 681/NB/08 b. Name of the licence holder Hari Pranal Dutta Thakuria c. Date of issue 17/04/08 d. Driving licence validity 16/04/2030 e. Authorized to drive M/C, LMV only f. Old driving licence no NIL g. Issuing authority DTO, Nalbari 14. It appears that exhibit A is a Xerox copy. The original is not produced before the Tribunal. Hence, it was not compared with the original. It is not known whether the original copy of exhibit A is available in the hands of insurance company. As the copy of original document is not produced before the Tribunal at the time of proving the document vide exhibit A, the Xerox copy has no value in the eye of law. Apart from that the driving licence of the driver is not available in the record to show that the driving licence produced by the driver of the alleged vehicle was having the DL number 681/NB/08. It also appears from the record of MAC case no 134/2011 that during trial though insurance company adduced one witness i.e. D.W-1 and his affidavit on evidence was also submitted but subsequently he did not appear before the trial court to face cross examination as such his evidence on affidavit was supposed to be expunged. Hence, the trial court did not consider the submission of the insurance company regarding fake driving licence of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. It is also noted that the person who issued exhibit-A was not examined to prove the document in question. Hence, the trial court did not consider the submission of the insurance company regarding fake driving licence of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. It is also noted that the person who issued exhibit-A was not examined to prove the document in question. Under such backdrop, the exhibit-A cannot be taken into consideration in this case. In view of the above, it can be said that the insurance company has failed to prove any document that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was having a fake driving licence on the date of incident. Hence, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the respondent/claimant. 15. Regarding disability of the victim, according to the claimant, his son Om Prakash Rimal sustained grievous injuries on different parts of his body. The victim was not examined in the case. The claimant nowhere stated that in which part of the body his son sustained injury. The claimant stated in his evidence that after the accident his son was treated at Sadiya Civil Hospital, Chepakhowa and AMCH, Dibrugarh and for better treatment his son was taken to Christian Medical College, Vellore and Orthopaedic and Trauma Clinic, Patna. Exhibit 5 is the medical report of one Rimal which shows that he attended Chepakhowa FRU, Sadiya on 27/10/2010 i.e. on the date of accident and on examination, doctor found loss of movement of lower limbs. Exhibit-6 is the discharge certificate of AMCH, Dibrugarh which reveals that the victim Om Prakash Rimal was admitted to AMCH, Dibrugarh on 27/10/10 i.e. on the date of accident and discharged on 07/03/2011. On examination of the victim, it was diagnosed traumatic paraplegia and bowel and bladder involvement and fracture of left Vertebra and chest injury. Exhibit-7 is the disability certificate, which shows that after examination of the victim Om Prakash Rimal by Board of Doctors of AMCH, Dibrugarh, the Board found fracture of left vertebra with paraplegia with bowel and bladder involvement and he had 90% permanent physical impairment. 16. To prove the physical condition of the victim, one witness was examined by the claimant, Dr. Ranjit Kumar Baruah as CW1. He deposed in his evidence that he issued exhibit 7 as one of the signatories against Om Prakash Rimal on 08/07/2011. They used to issue a certificate based on the assessment of the disability. 16. To prove the physical condition of the victim, one witness was examined by the claimant, Dr. Ranjit Kumar Baruah as CW1. He deposed in his evidence that he issued exhibit 7 as one of the signatories against Om Prakash Rimal on 08/07/2011. They used to issue a certificate based on the assessment of the disability. In his cross examination, C.W-1 clarified that whenever any patient makes an application for assessing personal disability the Board consisting of three doctors examines the patient for his/her disability. Exhibit-7 was issued on the basis of the medical records and physical examination of the patient. The extent of 90% disability how it was arrived was not mentioned in Exhibit-7. However, as per Exhibit-7 the disability certificate, the victim has 90% permanent disability as it is a case of traumatic paraplegia with bowel and bladder involvement. 17. As the victim is not having bladder and bowel sensation, so he needs catheter for drainage of urine and diaper, as he is not having any bowel sensation for rest of his life. His catheter needs to be changed for every two to three weeks for preventing urinary infection. It is not in dispute that the son of the claimant had become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. He has become lifelong handicapped. It is true that no amount of compensation can restore his broken and shattered physical frame. It is really difficult to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the victim. 18. In the case of Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 Hon’ble Supreme Court considered large number of precedents and laid down following principles for computation of compensation in such cases – “what requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may, however, note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be 100%, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in a government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in the loss of his employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of “future earnings” if the claimant continues in the government service though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand”. 19. In another case R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest control (India) Private Ltd reported in (1995) 1 ACC 551, a road accident resulted in 100% disability due to paraplegia below waist to a lawyer. The Supreme Court observed that no amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant and that the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate because it is impossible to equate money with human sufferings or personal deprivation. 20. Reverting back to the present case, it appears that the victim has become paraplegic and permanently disabled to carry out any work, he cannot even stand on his own and do even the normal day to day work. The victim claims that prior to the accident he was working in M/S JJ Electricals situated at Polo field, Tezpur and he used to draw monthly salary of Rs.7500/- vide exhibit 10. 21. The victim claims that prior to the accident he was working in M/S JJ Electricals situated at Polo field, Tezpur and he used to draw monthly salary of Rs.7500/- vide exhibit 10. 21. To prove the exhibit-10, one witness was examined CW3 Jitumoni Das, who is the proprietor of M/S J.J. Electricals Tezpur. According to him, though the victim Om Prakash Rimal had joined in his firm in the year 2008 but he could not say the exact date of his joining. He had not stated in exhibit-10 that Om Prakash Rimal was engaged at Doom Dooma. He is an income tax assesse and his firm has income tax and sales tax registers but he had not shown the salary paid to Om Praksh Rimal in his income tax returns. He had not submitted the income tax and sales tax returns before the Tribunal. This witness also stated that he had not submitted any document to prove that he is the proprietor of M/S JJ Electricals. He also had not submitted the copies of trade licence before the Tribunal. He did not submit the attendance register, pay bills and vouchers. He had not deducted any professional tax from Om Prakash Rimal. It was not mentioned in exhibit 10 whether Om Prakash Rimal was a skilled or unskilled labour. Under such backdrop, it can be said that exhibit-10 cannot be taken into consideration in this case. However notional income of Rs.5000/- be considered as monthly income of the victim. 22. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in SLP (Civil) no 25590/2014, it was observed that while determining the income of the deceased in case of self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. 23. Learned tribunal in the Judgment stated the age of the son of the claimant was 32 years when the accident took place and which was not agitated by the insurance company. Hence, the age of the injured be considered as 32 years at the relevant time of accident. So, 40 % should be added along with his established income of Rs.5000/-. Hence the monthly income of the victim is considered as Rs.5000/- + 2000 (40%) = Rs.7000/-. 24. Hence, the age of the injured be considered as 32 years at the relevant time of accident. So, 40 % should be added along with his established income of Rs.5000/-. Hence the monthly income of the victim is considered as Rs.5000/- + 2000 (40%) = Rs.7000/-. 24. As per the case of Sarala Verma v. DTC reported in AIR (2009) 6 SC 121 the multiplier would be 16. 25. Hence, the computation of compensation is awarded as follows – a. Monthly income of the injured Rs.7000/- b. Loss of income comes to Rs.7000/-x12x16=Rs.13,44,000/- c. Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/- d. Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,50,000/- e. Medical expenses Rs.42,606/- Future medical expenses - from the evidence of medical officer, it reveals that the son of the claimant is not having bowel and bladder sensation, so he needs catheter for drainage of urine and diaper which needs to be changed frequently to prevent urinary infection. Since body of the son of the victim below waist has become paraplegic and he has no control over bladder and bowel movement he regularly requires changing of catheter, diaper etc for which the victim would require money for medicine and the needed articles. As such under this head he is granted Rs.2, 00,000/-. Charges of attendance Rs.1,00,000/- Conveyance Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.20,86,606/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred Six) only. 26. In the result appeal is dismissed. The compensation and award is modified as described above. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation amounting to Rs.20,86,606/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred Six) to the claimant Ram Prasad Rimal in his savings account of any nationalised bank through NEFT. The compensation so awarded will carry an interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the case till full and final realization. Any amount if paid earlier be adjusted accordingly. 27. LCR be returned back. The statutory amount in deposit be returned to the insurance company.