JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with award dated 6.4.2018, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., whereby tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition No. 27-S/2 of 2015 having been filed by the respondent No.1-petitioner, saddled the appellant-Insurance Company with liability to pay compensation to respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.32,38,500/-alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short “the Act”), praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid award passed by the learned MACT below. 2. Precisely, the undisputed facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are that on 14.4.2015, car bearing registration No. HP-14C-0208 being driven by respondent No.2, rashly and negligently, hit a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-14B-2746 being driven by respondent No.1-Yash Pal, as a result of which, respondent No.1 suffered multiple injuries on his head, face and several parts of the body. Since accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, police after having received information with regard to the accident, lodged FIR. Though initially, respondent No.1 was shifted to Government Hospital, but he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, wherein he remained admitted for 28 days in emergency ward. Since no bed was allotted to respondent No.1 at PGI, he was shifted to Eden Hospital, near Elante Mall, Chandigarh. In the accident, respondent No.1 suffered 100% disability and was compelled to spend more than Rs. 15.00 lac on his treatment. Since on account of permanent disability to the extent of 100%, respondent No.1 also became disabled to do anything in future, he filed petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking therein compensation under different heads. 3. Aforesaid claim put forth by respondent No.1 came to be resisted by the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 though nowhere denied the factum with regard to accident, but claimed that accident had taken place due to the negligence of respondent No.1. He also denied that there is disablement in the body of respondent No.1 to the tune of 100% and hence, he has spent more than Rs. 15.00 lac on his treatment. Respondent No.2 also claimed that since offending vehicle was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company, liability, if any, to pay compensation is of appellant-Insurance Company. 4. He also denied that there is disablement in the body of respondent No.1 to the tune of 100% and hence, he has spent more than Rs. 15.00 lac on his treatment. Respondent No.2 also claimed that since offending vehicle was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company, liability, if any, to pay compensation is of appellant-Insurance Company. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company, while claiming that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 also disputed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- before the accident. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied that on account of injuries allegedly suffered in the accident, respondent No.1 is unable to move and is bed ridden. Lastly, appellant-Insurance Company specifically raised plea with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by stating that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid license at the time of the accident. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record, learned Tribunal below framed following issues: 1. Whether on the morning of 14.4.2015 around 10:20 a.m. near PNB, Dharampur, Police Station, Dharampur on the National Highway, respondent No.1 was driving car bearing registration No. HP-14C-0208 rashly and negligently which resulted in causing multiple injuries to the petitioner when motorcycle bearing registration No. HP- 14B-2746 having been driven by the petitioner knocked down by the aforesaid car, as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/-alongwith interest from the respondents jointly and severally, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether petition of the petitioner is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-2. 4. Whether the aforesaid car being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-2. 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPR-2. 6. Relief.” 6. Learned Tribunal below, having taken note of the pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties, allowed the claim petition vide award impugned in the instant proceedings and held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.32,38,500/-. In the aforesaid background appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant appeal. 7. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant-Insurance Company as has been highlighted in the appeal and further canvassed by Mr. In the aforesaid background appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant appeal. 7. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant-Insurance Company as has been highlighted in the appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, is that impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below is not based upon proper appreciation of documentary as well as oral evidence adduced on record. Mr. Thakur vehemently argued that since no evidence was led on record by respondent No.1 to prove his monthly income to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- as well as factum of his being employed at CRI Kasauli, there was no occasion, if any, for the Tribunal below to consider the income of respondent No.1 as Rs. 7,000/- per month. Mr. Thakur, further argued that Tribunal below wrongly awarded Rs. 5,26,500/-, on account of medical expenses allegedly incurred by respondent No.1. He submitted that aforesaid amount claimed on account of medical expenses was never proved in accordance with law. He submitted that respondent No.1 never examined concerned medical officer to prove the original bills and as such, Tribunal below further erred in ignoring the crucial aspect of non-examination of doctor of the Hospital to prove factum with regard to treatment, if any, done or advised by the hospital as named in the claim petition. Lastly, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, argued that Tribunal below has erred in awarding Rs. 3,60,000/- on account of future medical expenses to respondent No.1, especially when he failed to examine the doctor to prove that he requires medical treatment in future and in the absence of any material to this effect, impugned award is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 8. To the contrary, Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior counsel, supported the impugned award. While making this Court peruse the evidence led on record vis-à-vis impugned award, Mr. Thakur strenuously argued that there is no scope of interference. He submitted that though respondent No.1 had claimed his monthly income to be Rs. 10,000/- but since same was not proved in accordance with law, learned Tribunal below having taken note of the fact that appellant-Insurance Company never succeeded in rebutting the claim of respondent No.1 that he was earning Rs. 10,000/ - from agricultural pursuits, rightly considered the income of the respondent as Rs. 7000/-. Mr. 10,000/- but since same was not proved in accordance with law, learned Tribunal below having taken note of the fact that appellant-Insurance Company never succeeded in rebutting the claim of respondent No.1 that he was earning Rs. 10,000/ - from agricultural pursuits, rightly considered the income of the respondent as Rs. 7000/-. Mr. Thakur further submitted that once bills tendered in evidence were never refuted by the appellant-Insurance Company, there was otherwise no requirement, if any, for respondent No.1 to examine doctor of the hospital with regard to payment /expenditure made/incurred by the respondent No.1 towards his treatment. While referring to the statement made by PW2 Dr. Jai Sharma, as well as Ex.PW2/A, Mr. Thakur argued that disability to the extent of 100% and total incapacitation of respondent No.1 to work on account of disability, stands duly proved with the statement of Dr. Jai Sharma. Lastly, Mr. Thakur, submitted that once it stands duly established on record that on account of 100% disability, respondent No.1 is unable to work in future, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Tribunal below in awarding the amount on account of loss of future earnings. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the award impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court finds that court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously. 10. It is not in dispute that despite there being sufficient opportunity, appellant-Insurance Company failed to lead the evidence. Similarly, cross-examination conducted on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company nowhere suggests that it was able to extract anything contrary from the witnesses adduced on record by respondent No.1, to what they stated in their examination-in-chief. Similarly, respondent No.2 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle also failed to lead any oral evidence, however, he tendered/proved copy of insurance policy Ext.RW1/A, copy of registration certificate Ext.RW1/B, copy of driving license Ext.RW1/C, perusal whereof clearly reveals that at the time of the accident, offending vehicle was not only insured, but it was validly registered with the licensing authority. Similarly, respondent No.2 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle also failed to lead any oral evidence, however, he tendered/proved copy of insurance policy Ext.RW1/A, copy of registration certificate Ext.RW1/B, copy of driving license Ext.RW1/C, perusal whereof clearly reveals that at the time of the accident, offending vehicle was not only insured, but it was validly registered with the licensing authority. Perusal of driving license Ext.RW1/C clearly reveals that at the time of the accident, driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving license. After having perused aforesaid documents, it cannot be concluded that offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, issue No. 4 rightly came to be decided against the respondents, especially appellant-Insurance Company. 11. Respondent No.1 examined himself as PW3 through Local Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal. Mere appointment of the Local Commissioner by the Tribunal itself suggests that on account of injuries suffered by him, respondent No.1 had been rendered totally incapacitated. To prove rash and negligent driving, respondent No.1, while examining himself as PW3 categorically deposed that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. He deposed that he suffered 100% disability, as a result of which, he was unable to move. He also in his statement stated that he spent more than Rs. 20,00,000/- on his treatment. While deposing that he remained admitted at PGI and Eden Hospital Chandigarh, respondent No.1 categorically deposed that on account of injuries suffered by him, he was unable to move as there is a fracture in his spinal cord. While proving medical bills Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-29, he successfully proved that he spent huge amount on his treatment. Close scrutiny of medical bill receipts Ext.P- 1 to P29 clearly reveals that on account of injuries suffered by respondent No.1 in the alleged accident, he was compelled to spend sum of Rs. 5, 26, 416 and as such, tribunal below rightly held him entitled to the aforesaid amount. 12. No doubt, respondent No.1, while claiming himself to be working in CRI Kasauli, claimed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, but since he was unable to place on record receipt of salary, if any, given by CRI Kasauli, learned Tribunal below while examining aforesaid claim of respondent No.1 considered his income to be Rs. 7000/- per month from agricultural pursuits. 13. 10,000/- per month, but since he was unable to place on record receipt of salary, if any, given by CRI Kasauli, learned Tribunal below while examining aforesaid claim of respondent No.1 considered his income to be Rs. 7000/- per month from agricultural pursuits. 13. It is not in dispute that besides claiming himself to be employed at CRI Kasauli, respondent No.1 also claimed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- on account of agricultural pursuits and such claim never came to be refuted on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondent No.2. Since factum with regard to income, if any, on account of agricultural pursuits was never laid challenge by the appellant-Insurance Company, Tribunal below rightly considered the income of respondent No.1 to be Rs. 7,000/- for the reason that respondent No.1 was able to prove aforesaid income on account of agricultural pursuits by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 14. There cannot be any quarrel with the argument advanced by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel that in such like cases where income is not proved on account of non-placement of salary receipt or other documents suggestive of income, Tribunal is under obligation to decide the monthly income, if any, of the claimant on the basis of Minimum Wages Act. In the case at hand, respondent No.1 besides claiming himself to be employed at CRI Kasauli, specifically claimed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month on account of agricultural pursuits. Since no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record qua the employment as well as payment, if any, from CRI Kasauli to respondent No.1, coupled with the fact that appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondent No.2 were unable to dispute factum of earning from agricultural pursuits, Tribunal below rightly considered the income of respondent No.1 to be Rs. 7,000/- per month. Though, while passing impugned award, Tribunal below has not specifically made mention of Minimum Wages Act, but this court cannot lose sight of the fact that in the Year, 2015, daily wage as notified under the Act in the case of unskilled worker was not less than Rs. 180/-. If it is so, sum of Rs. 7,000/- cannot be considered to be on higher side. 180/-. If it is so, sum of Rs. 7,000/- cannot be considered to be on higher side. In view of the above, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Tribunal below, while considering the monthly income of the respondent No.1 to be Rs. 7,000/-. 15. Having perused statement made by PW2 Dr. Jai Sharma, and disability certificate Ext. PW2/A, it can be safely concluded that injury suffered by respondent No.1 has seriously affected the earning capacity of respondent No.1. PW2 Dr. Jai Sharma, while proving disability certificate Ext.PW2/A categorically deposed that the patient has suffered 100% disability. Aforesaid witness specifically denied the suggestion put forth on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondent No.2 that aforesaid injuries may recover with the passage of time. Otherwise also, perusal of disability certificate nowhere suggests that the injured is likely to recover from the injuries with the passage of time. Leaving everything aside, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that on account of injury suffered by him in the accident, respondent No.1 was unable to come to the court for recording his statement and as such, he was provided help of Local Commissioner. 16. Though, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, attempted to argue that the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity, but such plea of him cannot be accepted. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this court that Tribunal, while accessing compensation on account of permanent disability, should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity because equating the extent of loss of the earning capacity to the extent of permanent disability would result in award either too high or too low in compensation. While ascertaining compensation in such like cases, Tribunal below, at the first instance, is required to assess that what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and he could not do so, as a result of permanent disability. While ascertaining compensation in such like cases, Tribunal below, at the first instance, is required to assess that what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and he could not do so, as a result of permanent disability. Second step is to ascertain his vocation, profession and nature of work before the accident; and the third step is to find out whether claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether, in spite of the permanent disability, he could still effectively carry on activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on. In such like cases, Tribunal below is also required to ascertain, whether claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities or functions but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and function so that he continues to earn his livelihood. 17. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 343 , relevant paras whereof read as under: “10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. 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 the 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. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [ (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298 ] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567 ]). 12.…………………………………………………………………….. 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. To assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded, this Court has to assess whether the permanent disability caused has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the Appellant, as held by this Court in the case of Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande and Anr. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereunder :- “The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration thus is to assess whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. We feel that the conclusion of the MACT on the application of aforesaid test is erroneous. A very myopic view is taken by the MACT in taking the view that 70% permanent disability suffered by the appellant would not impact the earning capacity of the appellant. The MACT thought that since the appellant is a chartered accountant he is supposed to do sitting work and therefore his working capacity is not impaired….. A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily able. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age.” 18. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and percentage of disability incurred by respondent No.1 in the accident, this court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that amount to the tune of Rs. 3.00 lac on account of physical and mental pain, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life, is on higher side, rather same appears to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such, no interference in that regard is warranted. 19. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the award impugned in the instant proceedings and as such, same is upheld. Present appeal fails and dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All pending applications stand disposed of.