HI^H COURT OF CHHATTES^RH ^T BIL^SPUR Misc.^Doeal No. 908 of 2005 CORA^: Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ &. Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. ADDellcxnt Non /IpDdcctnt fNo.3) Respondents {ADplicant) (Non Appliant No.l) (Non Applicant No.2) National Insurance Company Ltd Through-Its Branch Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS 1, Amit pawar, aged about 25 years, S/o Late M.R. Pawar, R/o Near ftam Mandir Chatapara, Bilaspur Tahsil <& Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 2, Ramesh Chandra, aged about^S years, S/o Girija Shankar Mishra R/o &irija shankar Mishra,R/o Orahat, P.S. Civil Line, Distt-. Rewa (M.P.) (Oriver- Truck No. M.P. 17-C/4252) 3.. C,L, Choubey, aged about, S/o Not known, R/o Civit Line, Rewa Distt< Rewa (Reg. Owner of Truck N0. M.A. 17-C/425Z Shri" Oashrath 6upta, Counsel for the appellant. O^AL OftDER (Passed on 2nd January 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK/ C.J. 1. In this appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, what was urged before us is that in assessing loss of future income for a period of three years, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T) is not •^^iS^w^^w^w^^.^S*,^.^ \_. /.-'.^ ^J° ^ justified in taking the monthly income of the 1 respondent as Rs, 6,000/"°. We do not fihd any merit in the contention. It has come in the evidence that the 1st respondent at 1+ie relevant pointof time was owner cum driver of a van. Having regard to the time oincl place of the accident/such a man earning monthly income of Rs, 6,000/-n could not be regarded as something speculative or unreasonable, In that view of the matter, we cannot take any exception to the impugned award of -the Tribunal taktn9monthly income of the t respondent as Rs. 6,000/- for the purpose of assessing future loss of income for a period of three years. 2. Apart from the above position/according to us, the oppeal is also not maintainable in hw because, admittedly, the appellant Insurance Company did not seek permission to contest the claim on merit as envisaged under Section 170 (b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 3. In the resuEt the appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed, However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge