JUDGEMENT & ORDER : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and respondent No. 3 in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019, and Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and appellant in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019. Also heard Ms. S. Deb, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 in both the appeals. 2. In MAC Appeal No. 585/2019, filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Judgment and Award dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Member MACT, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 167/2011, filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. 2.1. In MAC Appeal No. 384/2019, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant (Shri Partha Pratim Hazarika) has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Judgment and Award dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Member MACT, Kamrup (M) Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 167/2011, filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Award dated 21.12.2018, the learned Member MACT, Kamrup (M) has directed the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 to pay a sum of Rs. 6,85,963/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition. Background Facts:- 4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeals, are adumbrated herein below:- “On 12.10.2008, at about 08:30/9:00 p.m., the claimant, namely, Partha Pratim Hazarika was proceeding towards Morigaon from Jagiroad, on a Motor Cycle, bearing registration No. AS-02/D-2627. At Baghjap, under the jurisdiction of Jagiroad P.S. one Scooter bearing registration No. AS- 01/J-3669, which was also proceeding toward Morigaon, and driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Motor Cycle of the claimant from backside, as a result the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries over his head resulting complete memory loss. In respect of the said accident, Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 184 of 2009 was registered under Sections 279/338 IPC and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the rider of the offending scooter. After the accident the claimant was taken to GNRC Hospital as indoor patient. In respect of the said accident, Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 184 of 2009 was registered under Sections 279/338 IPC and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the rider of the offending scooter. After the accident the claimant was taken to GNRC Hospital as indoor patient. And even after discharge also he had to undergo regular check-up in the said hospital. He had also undergone treatment at Guwahati Neuro Clinic and also consulted doctors at GMCH and with the doctors of NRHM and the doctors are of the opinion that no amount of treatment would improve his condition. Since the date of accident he has been suffering from unbearable pain, agonies and traumas, and he not only became weak, but also disabled permanently. Before the accident the claimant was working in M/S Vertex Computer and was earning salary @ Rs. 6500/ per month. After the accident he lost his job as he was unable to do any kind of work. Then on 27.02.2018 his disability was assessed by the Doctors of Medical Board at 70%. He had spent more than Rs. 2,00,000/ in treatment. Besides, he had to come to Guwahati for treatment by hiring a vehicle and as such he had to spent huge amount for conveyance and also had to spent huge amount for fooding and lodging of his family members. At the time of accident the offending scooter was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. with Policy Number 321100/31/2009/675 and the said policy was valid upto 12.06.2009. He was also supposed to get married before the accident, but, after the accident the said proposal was repudiated. Thereafter, the claimant had preferred a claim petition before the learned Member MACT, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, claiming a sum of Rs. 34,40,000/ being the compensation. On receipt of notice from the tribunal, the Opposite Party No. 1, i.e. the present appellant, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending scooter, entered appearance and filed written statement, wherein it had denied the facts of the alleged accident and also denied the age, income and profession of the claimant. It is stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant side is excessive, exaggerated and having no real basis. It is stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant side is excessive, exaggerated and having no real basis. It is also stated that there was rash and negligent driving of the Motor Cycle No. AS-02-D- 2627, on the part of the claimant and as such, the Opposite Party No.1 is not solely responsible for payment of compensation. It has also denied all the statements, made in the claim petition. Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, the driver and owner of the offending scooter, also contested the case by filing their written statement on the ground that the claim petition is not maintainable and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the scooter and that the scooter was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vide Policy No. 321100/31/2009/675 and the same was valid till the time of occurrence. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had framed following issues:- (i) Whether, on 12.10.2008, the claimant Partha Pratim Hazarika sustained injuries in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle No. As- 01 /J 3699? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation and if yes, to what shall be just and proper compensation and who shall pay the amount ? The learned Member then examined the claimant as P.W.1 and the medical Officer as P.W.2. The claimant had also exhibited as many as 70 documents including the disability certificate and the medical prescription and vouchers, the accident information report and Charge sheet as Exhibit-1 to 68. Thereafter, hearing learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal had decided both the issues in favour of the claimant and thereafter, assessed the compensation @ Rs. 6,85,963/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, and if the order is not followed then additional interest @ 8% P.A. will be imposed on the said sum. Grounds:- 5. 6,85,963/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, and if the order is not followed then additional interest @ 8% P.A. will be imposed on the said sum. Grounds:- 5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant (the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) has preferred the present appeal being, MAC Appeal No. 585/2019, under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the correctness or otherwise of the Judgment and Award dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Member MACT, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, and contended to set aside the impugned Judgment and Award on the following grounds :- I. That, the learned Member, MACT, failed to consider that the FIR was lodged after 10 months of the accident, which creates doubt regarding the truthfulness of the said claim, and that no G.D. Entry was exhibited and proved. II. That, the learned Member, failed to consider that the accident took place due to collision of two vehicles and that the claimant was also responsible for the accident. But, the learned Member had arrived at a perverse finding that the claimant is not responsible for the accident as he is not a third party in relation to the vehicle insured in his name. III That, the learned Member also erred in granting a sum of Rs. 5,37,600/ for disability and loss of estate, but, no where it has explained how it had assessed the said sum. Further disability itself is not a ground for grant of compensation, there has to be loss of earning on account of such disability. IV. That, the learned Member, also erred in law in granting compensation on account of loss of estate, as the compensation under the said head can be granted only in case of death. V. That, the learned Member, failed to consider that Exhibit-70 does not mention what disability the claimant had suffered and the same does not fulfill the requirement of Section 142 of the M.V. Act. VI. That, the learned Member also failed to consider that in the Exhibit-70 loss of income was mentioned, but, loss of earning capacity was not mentioned. VII. That, the learned Member also failed to take note of the fact that the accident took place on 12.10.2008, and Exhibit-70 was of dated 27.02.2018, issued after 10 years. VI. That, the learned Member also failed to consider that in the Exhibit-70 loss of income was mentioned, but, loss of earning capacity was not mentioned. VII. That, the learned Member also failed to take note of the fact that the accident took place on 12.10.2008, and Exhibit-70 was of dated 27.02.2018, issued after 10 years. The claimant had also not taken any treatment after 18.01.2014, with regard to the injuries suffered by him. VIII. That, the learned Member had failed to consider the fact that the claim petition was filed in the year 2011, but, the claimant had filed his evidence only on 01.10.2018, after 7 years and as such granting of interest from the date of filing the claim petition is perverse. IX. That, the impugned judgment and award dated 21.12.2018, is bad in law to the extent of putting the liability of payment of Rs.6,85,963/ only along with interest @ 6% is upon the present appellant. 6. On the other hand the claimant had preferred MAC Appeal No. 384/2019, for enhancement of the compensation amount on the following grounds:- (i) That, the learned Member had failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and that there was no major contradiction. (ii) That, the learned Member has failed to consider the fact that the opposite party had not adduced any evidence, documentary or oral, what so ever. (iii) That, the learned Member had failed to appreciate the evidence of the doctor and other witnesses in its proper perspective. (iv) That, the learned Member had failed to consider the fact that the rate of interest ought to have been 12%, instead of 6%. (v) That, the learned Member ought to have taken the income of the claimant as Rs. 6,500/ per month. (vi) That, the learned Member ought to have taken increment of 50%upon the income of the claimant. Submissions:- 7. Ms. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and respondent No. 3 in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019, besides reiterating the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019, submits that the claimant herein had played fraud upon the learned Tribunal. Submissions:- 7. Ms. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and respondent No. 3 in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019, besides reiterating the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019, submits that the claimant herein had played fraud upon the learned Tribunal. She submits that the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup (M) had failed to consider that the FIR was lodged after 10 months of the accident, which creates doubt regarding the truthfulness of the said claim and that no G.D. Entry was exhibited and proved and that the accident took place due to collision of two vehicles and that the claimant was also responsible for the accident. Ms. Mozumdar also submits that the learned Member also erred in granting a sum of Rs. 5,37,600/ for disability and loss of estate, but disability, by itself is not a ground for grant of compensation and there has to be loss of earning on account of such disability. Besides, Ms. Mozumdar submits, that no where in the impugned judgment the learned Member had explained how it had assessed the said sum. 7.1. It is also the submission of Ms. Mozumdar that compensation on account of loss of estate can be granted only in case of death, not in the case of injury. Ms. Mozumder further submits that Exhibit-70 does not mentioned what disability the claimant had suffered and the same is contrary to the requirement of Section 142 of the M.V. Act and moreover, in Exhibit-70, loss of income was mentioned, but loss of earning capacity was not mentioned, and Exhibit 70 was issued after almost 10 years of accident. It is also being pointed out that the claim petition was filed in the year 2011, whereas the evidence was filed only on 01.10.2018, after 7 years and as such granting of interest from the date of filing the claim petition is perverse. 7.2. Under the aforementioned circumstances, it is contended to set aside the Judgment and Award dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Member MACT, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 167/2011. 8. On the other hand, Mr. 7.2. Under the aforementioned circumstances, it is contended to set aside the Judgment and Award dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Member MACT, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 167/2011. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and appellant in MAC Appeal No.384/2019, has, though supported the impugned Judgment and Award, yet he submits that the rate of interest so awarded by the learned member is too low and it ought to have been 12 %. Mr. Dubey also submits that the learned Member ought to have taken into account the income of the claimant at Rs. 6,500/-, per month. Moreover, while assessing the compensation, the learned Tribunal has failed to take into account the future prospect of the claimant. Lastly, Mr. Dubey submits that the plea of fraud was not taken by the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 before the learned Tribunal and the respondent No.3, in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019. Therefore, Mr. Dubey has contended to dismiss the MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and also to allow the MAC Appeal No. 384/2019 by enhancing the compensation amount. 8.1. Mr. Dubey has referred following decisions in support of his submission:- (i) Navjot Singh vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors., reported in 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 555, (ii) Divya vs., The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1099, (iii) Prakash Chand Sharma vs. Rambabu Saini & Anr., reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 305, 9. Per contra, Ms. S. Deb, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 in both the appeals, submits that the offending vehicle herein this case was the scooter bearing registration No. AS-01/J-3669, of whom the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was the insurer and that the said scooter had dashed against the Motor Cycle No. AS-02-D- 2627, from behind and that there was rash and negligent driving of the Motor Cycle No. AS-02-D- 2627, of whom the respondent No.5 is the insurer and as such the learned Member had rightly saddled the burden to pay compensation upon the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Discussion :- 10. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal as well as the grounds mentioned therein and also gone through the impugned Judgment and Award dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Member MACT, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 167/2011, and also gone through the case laws referred by Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019 and respondent No.1 in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019. 11. In the case in hand, having carefully gone through the evidence of P.W.1 and of the Medical Officer as P.W.2 and the documents exhibited as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-70, specially the medical prescriptions, advice slips and report of medical examination, and vouchers and also the accident information report and Charge sheet this Court is fairly convinced that the claimant- Shri Partha Pratim Hazarika, has suffered grievous injury in his person as a result of accident that took place on 12.10.2008 at about 8.30/9.00 pm at Baghjap, under Jagiroad P.S. 11.1. In the said accident two vehicles, one Scooter bearing registration No. AS-01/J-3669, of whom the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is the insurer and one Motor Cycle bearing registration No. AS-02-D- 2627, of whom the respondent No.5, i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is the insurer. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.1 that the scooter, bearing registration No. AS- 01/J-3669, had dashed against the Motor Cycle bearing registration No. AS-02-D- 2627. The learned Member had, based upon the evidence of P.W.1 and also considering the fact that upon the said accident police registered a case being Jagiroad P.S. Case No.184/2009 under Section 279/338 IPC, and the charge sheet submitted against the driver of the Scooter bearing registration No. AS- 01/J-3669, by police after investigation, which dashed against the Motor Cycle bearing registration No. AS-02-D- 2627, from behind, due to rash and negligent driving, had adjudged the scooter, bearing registration No. AS-01/J-3669, as the offending vehicle. 11.2. The learned Member had, based upon the evidence of P.W.1 and the medical prescriptions exhibited by him and also based upon the evidence of Medical Officer-P.W.2 and the Disability Certificate –Exhibit -70, had arrived at a conclusion that the claimant had succeeded in establishing that he suffered disability as a result of injury suffered by him in Road Traffic Accident (RTA). It also appears that after the accident, the claimant was admitted at GNRC, Guwahati on 13.10.2008 and discharged on 23.10.2008. The Discharge Certificate–Exhibit-4, indicates that the claimant had suffered multiple contusions in Lt. basifrontal, Rt. occipital, mid brain, Lt. temporal and Lt. high parietal region, subarachnoid hemorrhage in Lt. parietal region. The Disability Certificate –Extibit-70 also corroborated the said facts. 11.3. It is to be noted here that the evidence adduced by P.W.-1 and 2 and the documents exhibited by them were not seriously disputed by the respondents in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019 and appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019. The fact that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Scooter bearing registration No. AS-01/J-3669, and that the claimant had sustained injuries over his head could not be rebutted in cross-examination. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Member in respect of issue No.1, as referred herein above, has to be adjudged as correct as the same is based upon materials on record. 12. I have considered the issues raised in the memo of appeal of MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and also the submission of Ms. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant in the said appeal. But, in view of aforesaid discussion and finding, the same failed to mandate acceptance of this Court. Merely because of delay in filing the FIR and in obtaining disability certificate, otherwise the claim of the claimant cannot be disbelieved or branded as fraud. 13. Now, an endeavour will be made to examine whether the learned Member has assessed the just compensation correctly or not, which the claimant is entitled to. It is to be noted here that the learned Member had assessed the compensation as under:- (i) For disability and loss of estate = Rs. 5,37,600/- (ii) For medical Treatment = Rs. 98,363/- (iii) For pain and suffering = 50,000/- ____________________ Total Rs. 6,85,963/- 14. It is to be noted here that the law regarding entitlement of compensation by the injured in a routine injury case is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. 98,363/- (iii) For pain and suffering = 50,000/- ____________________ Total Rs. 6,85,963/- 14. It is to be noted here that the law regarding entitlement of compensation by the injured in a routine injury case is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the claimant is entitled to compensation under the following heads in a routine injury case:- “ Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.” 15. The claimant herein has exhibited the bills and vouchers and receipts for ‘medical expenses’ before the learned Tribunal for a sum of Rs.68,363.92/. But, it appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded the said sum under the head ‘medical expenses’. Ms. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019, however disputed the date of issuance of some of the vouchers and documents and submitted that the same were obtained by fraud. But, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019 submits that the mistake of date so pointed out is the result of fault of the system and the same does not reflect that the same were obtained by fraud. The submission of Mr. Dubey is found to justified and acceptable. But, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019 submits that the mistake of date so pointed out is the result of fault of the system and the same does not reflect that the same were obtained by fraud. The submission of Mr. Dubey is found to justified and acceptable. Moreover, the vouchers were not disputed before the learned Tribunal by the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019. 15.1. And having carefully gone through the said vouchers and receipts, I find that the appellant had submitted receipts and vouchers for a sum of Rs.68,363.92/ rounded off at Rs. 68,364/ only. And as such he is entitled to the said amount only under the head of ‘medical expenses’. The learned Tribunal, thus, rightly assessed the amount on the basis of receipts and vouchers. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.68,364/, being the compensation under the Head No. (i). 15.2. The learned Tribunal had not awarded a sum under the head of Special diet and also under the head Transportation and also under the Miscellaneous head. The claimant hails from Raha of Nagaon district and he took treatment at Guwahati and also he used to visit GNRC for checkup and he was hospitalized for 10 days having been admitted on 13.10.2008 and discharged on 23.10.2008. In the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is of the view that the claimant is entitled to some amount of compensation under the aforesaid heads. Accordingly, following sums are assessed under the aforesaid heads:- (i) Nourishing Food = Rs. 5000/- (ii) Transportation = Rs. 5000/- (iii) Miscellaneous = R s. 5000/- 16. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation under the head No. (ii) (a) and (b), I find from the evidence of the claimant that at the relevant point of time, the claimant was 34 years old and the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,37,600/ under the head disability and loss of estate. But, no discussion was directed as to how the aforesaid amount was assessed. Ms. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 has rightly pointed this out during argument. Further, it appears that the learned Member had awarded the aforesaid sum as loss of estate and disability. But, no compensation under the said head is contemplated in a routine injury case. 17. Ms. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 has rightly pointed this out during argument. Further, it appears that the learned Member had awarded the aforesaid sum as loss of estate and disability. But, no compensation under the said head is contemplated in a routine injury case. 17. Be that as it may, it appears from the evidence of the claimant that before the accident he was working in M/S Vertax Company and his monthly salary was Rs. 6,500/ per month. But he had not submitted any documentary proof in support of his said contention. That being so, his notional income has to be taken into account. Notably, the accident took place in the year 2008. Considering this aspect and the minimum wages prevailing at that point of time, the income of the claimant is notionally fixed at Rs. 5,000/- per month. 17.1. It also appears that the claimant was hospitalized for a period of 10 days. Because of the nature of injuries suffered by him he could not undertake any avocation at least for six months. And as such he is entitled to Rs.5,000/- x 6 = Rs.30,000/- for the period of six months. Thus, to the considered opinion of this Court, the claimant is entitled to Rs.30,000/- under Head No.(ii) (a), 18. Now, coming to the Head No.(ii) (b), I find that the claimant had suffered disability in the said accident and the percentage of disability was 70% as per Disability Certificate-Exhibit- 70 and as such, he is entitled to compensation under the said head. 18.1. Ms. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 submits that the disability of the claimant is not assessed to any limb or whole and in the disability only the injuries suffered by the claimant over his head is mentioned and that the said certificate was only obtained in the year 2018, while the accident took place in the year 2008. And as such, it cannot be said that the claimant has suffered any disability. 18.2. But, having considered the submission of Ms. Mozumdar, in the light of evidence of the claimant/PW-1, this Court is unable to record concurrence with the same. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that after the accident he started to forget things, names of places/persons etc. And as such, it cannot be said that the claimant has suffered any disability. 18.2. But, having considered the submission of Ms. Mozumdar, in the light of evidence of the claimant/PW-1, this Court is unable to record concurrence with the same. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that after the accident he started to forget things, names of places/persons etc. And that his behavior had changed drastically and he got angry as well as nervous easily and he started to suffer from insomnia and he became physically weak and suffering from unbearable pain, agonies and trauma and he could not take part in physical activities such as playing football, cricket, which he had played before the accident. This evidence of the claimant remained un-impeached throughout his cross-examination. 18.3. It is also to be noted here that section 2. (i) of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 defines disability. It provides that ‘disability’ means:- (i) blindness; (ii) low vision; (iii) leprosy-cured; (iv) hearing impairment; (v) locomotor disability; (vi) mental retardation; (vii) mental illness; 18.4. In the case in hand, the injuries suffered by the claimant leads him to condition described in Section 2 (i) (v), though the same does not fall in any other categories and also in the Section 142 of the M.V. Act, which deals with permanent disablement, which deemed to be resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving-- 1. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or 2. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; or 3. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. 18.5. But, in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case of any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 18.5. But, in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case of any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. Thus, under the given facts and circumstances discussed herein above and also in view of the evidence of P.W.2 and Exhibit-70, this Court is inclined to hold that the claimant suffered from permanent disability as a result of the injuries suffered by him in motor vehicle accident that took place on 12.08.2008. 19. Now coming to the issue of awarding compensation under head (ii) (b), this Court finds that there is clear evidence that the claimant was working in M/S Vertax Computer and after the accident he lost the job because of mental condition and he was unable to do any kind of work. These facts also remained un-rebutted in cross-examination. 19.1. While dealing with the issue of loss of future earnings in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability:- 6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. 8. 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, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. 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, 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. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently 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 (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567 ). 9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 10. 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 ability (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. 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 hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of 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 a 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 government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may. 11. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to `hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the `just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the `just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopaedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. If a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage. 12. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross- examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. 13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. 13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 19.2. Further, it appears that in the Exhibit-70 it had not specified that the 70% permanent disability is in respect of whole body or not. But, having ascertained 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 and further having ascertained his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age and also having found out the claimant was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, this Court is inclined to assessed his functional disability at 50%. Because, Exhibit-4- the Discharge Certificate, indicates that on the date of discharge no limb weakness was noted. His GCS was E4, V5 and M6 at the time of discharge. That being so, the claimant herein could carry on some lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 19.3 . Thus, the computation under the head of loss of future income is computed as under:- Sl. No. Head Amount 01. Notional Income per month Rs.5000/ 02. 40% increase towards future prospect Rs.5,000/ + 2000 = Rs. 7000/- 03. Annual Income Rs.7,000 x 12=Rs. 84,000/- 04. 19.3 . Thus, the computation under the head of loss of future income is computed as under:- Sl. No. Head Amount 01. Notional Income per month Rs.5000/ 02. 40% increase towards future prospect Rs.5,000/ + 2000 = Rs. 7000/- 03. Annual Income Rs.7,000 x 12=Rs. 84,000/- 04. Income after applying multiplier 16 Rs.84,000/ x 16= Rs.13,44,,000/- 05. 50% of the total loss of income assessed towards loss of future earning Rs. 6,72,000/- 19.4. The, claimant will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,72,000/ under the head (ii) (b). In assessing above compensation, this Court has followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirupam Mohan Mathur vs. New India Assurance Company, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 15 . 20. There is also no medical evidence to suggest that the claimant has to incur medical expenses in future for his treatment. Therefore, in absence of medical evidence as well as documentary proof, this Court is of the view that he will not be entitled to any compensation under the Head No. (iii). 21. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation under the Head No. (iv), we find from the evidence of the injured/claimant that he was admitted in hospital from 13.10.2008 till 23.10.2008. He suffered permanent disability, due to the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. He was 34 years old at the material time of accident. Having regard to above, This Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- will be the just and proper amount of compensation, which the learned Member had also awarded under this head. 22. There is no medical evidence to suggest that the injury sustained by the claimant, will have any impact upon his normal longevity of life. Therefore, he will not be entitled to any compensation under the head (vi). But there is specific evidence of the claimant that before the accident his marriage was fixed in the year 2008 and all arrangements were completed. However, after the accident the proposal got repudiated. This piece of evidence is not disputed by the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and respondent No.3 in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant will be entitled to compensation under the head Nos. (v). And under the given factual background the same is assessed at Rs.50,000/-. 23. This piece of evidence is not disputed by the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and respondent No.3 in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant will be entitled to compensation under the head Nos. (v). And under the given factual background the same is assessed at Rs.50,000/-. 23. Also this Court is inclined to add a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Boloram Prasad Vs. Kunal Saha & others , reported in (2014) 1 SCC 384 . 24. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total amount of Rs.9,10,364/- (Rupees nine lakhs ten thousand three hundred & sixty four) only, as compensation, and in our considered opinion, this amount would be the just, equitable, fair and reasonable amount of compensation here in this case. 25. It is to be noted that while making assessment of the aforesaid compensation, this Court has placed reliance upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savita v. Bindar Singh, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 505 wherein, considering its earlier decisions in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 , it has been observed as under:- “ We are of the opinion that it is the duty of the court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation.” 26. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation.” 26. It also appears that the learned Tribunal has directed to pay interest @ 6%, from the date of filing the claim petition till payment of the amount. But, the same appears to be in lower side. The learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019, has rightly submitted that the rate of interest is in lower side. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Upahar Tragedy Victims Association and Ors, (2011) 14 SCC 481 and also in Kalpanaraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation: (2014) Acci.C.R.693 (S.C.), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9%, till realization of the amount. Therefore, drawing premises for the aforesaid decision it is provided that the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization from the date of filing of evidence -in-affidavit i.e. 01.10.2018 and not from the date of filing the claim petition as directed by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 27. However, it is made clear that the component of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects (i.e. upon Rs. 6,72,000/-) shall not be subjected to interest in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors . in Civil appeal No.9581 of 2018 [arising out of SLP [Civil] No.3192 of 2018], decided on 18th September, 2018. 28. I have carefully considered the submission of Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019 and respondent No.1 in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019, in respect of addition of future income and rate of interest and I find sufficient force in the same and also gone through the decisions referred by him in (i) Navjot Singh (supra) (ii) Divya (supra) and in (iii) Prakash Chand Sharma (supra), and I find that the ratios laid down therein also strengthened his submission and accordingly, this Court is inclined to record concurrence with his submission. 29. Accordingly, MAC Appeal No. 384/2019 stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 29. Accordingly, MAC Appeal No. 384/2019 stands allowed to the extent indicated above. But, MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 stands dismissed, however, the date of awarding interest stands modified to the extent indicated above. The appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and respondent No. 3 in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019 shall deposit aforesaid amount of compensation within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order, directly in the account of the claimant by NEFT or by any other electronic mode convenient to him. The appellant in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019 shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and shall place the same before the respondent No.1 insurance company within a week from today. Further, he will furnish his bank details to the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 585/2019 and respondent No. 3 in MAC Appeal No. 384/2019, along with the copy of the judgment and order. 30. Send down the record of the learned Tribunal with a copy of this judgment and order . The parties have to bear their own cost.