JUDGMENT : Vipin Chandra Dixit, J. 1. First Appeal From Order No. 373 of 2008 has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 12.12.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Muzaffarnagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 316 of 2006 (Babu vs. Prem Singh Rawant and another) by which compensation of Rs. 35,000/- along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of claimant-respondent no. 1 on account of injuries received by him. 2. First Appeal From Order No. 383 of 2008 has been filed by the claimant-appellant against the same judgment and award dated 12.12.2007 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 316 of 2006 for enhancement of compensation. 3. Since both the appeals were filed against the same impugned judgment and award dated 12.12.2007, as such, both the appeals are being decided by the common judgment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the injured claimant Babu was going to his village on 17.04.2006 by his cycle and when he reached near Khadkawala Baag G.T. Road at about 07:00 P.M., a Maruti Zen Car bearing no. HR 51 J 2174 came from opposite direction and hit the cycle of claimant, who had received grievous injuries. It was also pleaded that the first information report was lodged in P.S. Parkazi, Muzaffar Nagar. The age of claimant was 22 years and he become permanent disabled on account of injuries received in the accident. The claim petition was filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 22,90,000/- along with interest against the owner and insurer of car. 5. The owner of car had appeared before the claims tribunal and filed his written statement denying allegations of claim petition. It was specifically pleaded that car was driven by his daughter Km. Ishu Rawat, who has a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. 6. The Insurance Company has also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition. It was pleaded that the driver of the car was not having valid and effective driving licence and there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It was pleaded that the driver of the car was not having valid and effective driving licence and there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7.The claims tribunal had framed four issues for determination regarding rash and negligent driving of car driver, validity of driving licence of car driver, breach of insurance policy and quantum of compensation. The claims tribunal after considering the entire evidence and materials which are available on record has recorded the finding while deciding issue no. 1 that the driver of the car was rash and negligent and was responsible for accident. The claims tribunal has decided issue no. 2 against the Insurance Company holding that the driving licence of car driver was valid and effective on the date of accident and there was no breach of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The compensation was assessed while deciding issue no. 4 and has awarded Rs. 35,000/- in favour of injured claimant and liability has been fixed upon Insurance Company being insurer of Maruti car. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the insured car was plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as the driver of car was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The eye witness PW-2 namely Shansar Singh has stated on oath before the claims tribunal that at the time of accident, the car was being driven by its owner. No driving licence of car owner was filed either by the claimant or by the owner of the car and the claims tribunal has erred in deciding issue of driving licence against the Insurance Company and liability has wrongly been fixed upon the Insurance Company, being insurer of car. No other ground was argued by learned counsel for Insurance Company. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant submits that it was specific case of the owner of the vehicle who was impleaded as opposite party no. 1 in the claim petition that the vehicle was being driven by his daughter Km. Ishu Rawat on the date of accident, who had a valid and effective driving licence. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant submits that it was specific case of the owner of the vehicle who was impleaded as opposite party no. 1 in the claim petition that the vehicle was being driven by his daughter Km. Ishu Rawat on the date of accident, who had a valid and effective driving licence. It is further submitted that after due investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted final report and no charge sheet has been submitted against the owner of the vehicle. The insurance Company has not led any evidence in rebuttal that Km. Ishu Rawat was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the car. It is further submitted that the claimant had received grievous injuries in the accident and has become permanent disabled and as per disability certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, there was 50% permanent disability to the claimant. Nothing has been awarded for loss of income as well as future prospects.. 10. Considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It was specific case of the owner of vehicle before the claims tribunal that at the time of accident his car was driven by his daughter Ishu Rawat who had valid and effective driving licence. The driving licence of Ishu Rawat was also filed by the owner of the vehicle before the claims tribunal. No evidence in rebuttal has been led by the Insurance Company disputing the genuineness of driving licence. The Insurance Company has failed to establish that at the time of accident, the insured car was driven by its driver Prem Singh Rawat, who was the owner of car. The claims tribunal after considering the entire evidence and materials which are available on record has recorded the finding that the car was driven by Km. Ishu Rawat, who has a valid driving licence. The finding recorded by the claims tribunal in respect of validity of driving licence is based on evidence and there is no illegality in any manner. 12. No other ground has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. 13. So far as, quantum of compensation is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant had received grievous injuries in the accident and has become permanent disabled. 12. No other ground has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. 13. So far as, quantum of compensation is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant had received grievous injuries in the accident and has become permanent disabled. The disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, discloses the disability of 50%. The claims tribunal has erred in disbelieving the disability certificate merely on the ground that the author of disability certificate was not produced before the claims tribunal and it was not proved. The claims tribunal has erred in disbelieving the disability certificate as it was issued by the Chief Medical Officer and is a public document and is admissible in evidence. The claims tribunal without assessing the just compensation has awarded only Rs. 30,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering. Nothing has been awarded by the claims tribunal for loss of income to the claimant as well as for future prospects. The disability certificate which was filed and relied by the claimant, issued by Chief Medical Officer discloses 50% disability to the claimant. There must be some functional disability to the claimant and as such, loss of earning capacity is accepted as 40%. 14. The accident was occurred in the year 2006. The notional income of the claimant is accepted as Rs. 3,000/- per month. The claimant is also entitled for 40% future prospects in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish vs. Mohan and others reported in 2018 (2) T.A.C. 14 The compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is reassessed as under :- 1) Monthly income = Rs. 3,000/- 2) Annual income = Rs. 3,000/- X 12 = Rs.36,000/- 3) Future prospects (40%) = Rs. 14,400/- 4) Total annual income = Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/- = Rs. 50,400/- 5) Loss of Earning Capacity (40%) : Rs. 20,160/- 6) Multiplier applicable (18) = Rs. 20,160/- x 18 = Rs. 3,62,880/- 7) Medical Bills : Rs. 30,000/- 8) Pain and Suffering : Rs. 10,000/- Total = Rs. 3,62,880/- + Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 4,02,880/- 15. In view of above, the First Appeal From Order No. 737 of 2008 filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd. is dismissed and First Appeal From Order No. 383 of 2008, filed by claimant for enhancement of compensation is partly allowed. 10,000/- Total = Rs. 3,62,880/- + Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 4,02,880/- 15. In view of above, the First Appeal From Order No. 737 of 2008 filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd. is dismissed and First Appeal From Order No. 383 of 2008, filed by claimant for enhancement of compensation is partly allowed. 16. The compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 4,02,880/-. The claimant is also entitled for 6% interest on enhanced amount from the date of award dated 12.12.2007. 17. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of award of Claims Tribunal i.e. 12.12.2007 to the claimant within two months from today. 18. In case of default in payment of enhanced amount within stipulated period, the claimant is entitled for 8% interest on the enhanced amount. No order as to costs.