MACApp. 43/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 1.2.2005 in MAC Case No. 180/2002 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judg e /Member, M.A.C.T, Darrang,Mandaldoi , whereby an amount of Rs. 3,23,070/- with interest 7% thereon , from the date of filing of the claim petition ,was award ed to the claimant/respondents. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows:- The respondent No. 1/ claimant instituted a claim before the learned M ember, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang ,for short,( MACT ) seeking a com pensation of Rs.7,00000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) for sustaining injuries in a moto r accident. The respondent No. 1/claimant ,was returning from Lakhipur to her residence a t Dalgaon along with her family members, in a TATA Sumo (AS-25/B-6813) . All of a sudden the said vehicle dashed against a road side tree , causing injuries to the passengers in the vehicle. The respondent No. 1/claimant,(hereinafter the c laimant) too, sustained injuries in the said accident. The claimant sustained se rious injuries on her persons, causing disfiguration of her face and damage to her both eyes. She was initially admitted in Kanaklata Civil Hospital,Tezpur an d thereafter, she was referred to Sankar Nethralaya, Guwahati for treatment. The reafter she was referred to Appolo Hospital,Chennai for better treatment. 3. Notices were served on all the opposite parties , who submitted their re spective written statements. 4. The appellant/ O.P. Insurance Company was granted permission by the lear ned Member, MACT under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle, Act as sought for . Th e appellant/Insurance Company submitted written statement stating therein that such accident had occurred due to rush and negligent driving of the vehicle by i ts driver and the offending vehicle in question had no valid insurance policy at the time of accident. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Member, MACT:- 1) Whether the claimant sustained injury due to rush and negligent driving of TATA SUMO bearing registration No. AS-25 B/6813 by its driver, Md. Hazarat A li, on 27.4.02 at about 9 p.m. at Ghahigaon Ballambasti under Halem P.S. ( Dist. Sonitpur) over N.H. 52 ? 2) Whether the offending vehicle had valid insurance policy, and the driver had valid driving licence at the time of accident ? 3) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, from whom i t is reasonable? 6. During the course of hearing, the claimant examined three witnesses to p rove the case , who were duly cross-examined by the appellant/O.P. 7. On conclusion of hearing of the claim petition, the learned Member, MACT , awarded a sum of Rs. 3,23,070/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of award to the claimant/ respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, submitted that the learned Member, MACT awarded compensation to the claimant/ respondent withou t ascertaining the extent of injury sustained by the claimant on her eyes, on th e basis on surmises and conjunctures. The learned counsel further pointed out t hat P.W-2, Dr. Kalyani Das, who was examined as P.W-2, to prove the injury and permanent disability sustained by the claimant, could not clarify as to the method adopted by her to ascertain the disability of the claimant. In reply t o the above contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimants referr ed to the injuries sustained by the claimant and the certificate issued by Docto rs’ Exhibits- 3 to Exhibit 7. 9. On close perusal of the Ext. 6 , it appears that the claimant was admitte d in Sankar Nethralaya, Guwahati from 28.4.2002 and she was released from the H ospital on 2.5.2002.As per the Doctor’s certificate the claimant was found to ha ve sustained open globe injury (OU) , corneal scleral laceration (OU), Iris pr olapse Vit prolapse (OS) , multiple lid laceration (OU), multiple facial lacerat ion, SIPRTA the operative procedure of Iris abscission + Corneal Repair+ Lid Re pair-(OU) under G/A was carried out by Dr. S.D; and it was also found that she was under treatment there from 28.4.02 to 4.6.2002. 10. On close perusal of Exhibit 3, i.e. the certificate issued by Sankar N ethralaya, Chennai, it is seen that the claimant was taken to Sankar Nethrala ya, Chennai and was admitted there on 18.6.02 and she underwent lensectomy, vit rctomy, liquid perfluorocarbon, relaxing retinotomy, endolaser and silicone oil injection in the left eye under general anaesthesia on 20.6.02. The case of the claimant was reviewed here on 21.6.02, 24.6.02,26.6.02 and she came for glass appointment here on 7.8.02. She was also advised to undergo silicone oil remova l, membrance peeling, liquid , perfluorocarbon endolaser and resilicone oil inje ction in the left eye under local anaesthesia. 11. Dr.Kalyani Das, P.W-2 also found deep penetrating old injury with cornea l apacity with traumatic cataract. Anterior chamber was hazy due to corneal opa city was acquity of vision left eye was only p.L.+ v end , P.R. (defective) . A cquity of vision of right eye was found to be 6/18. So, her percentage of vis ual impairment was assessed 40% and she was found to be physically (visually) h andicapped.The above injury report coupled with the report of the doctors tell the story of owes of the claimant and the extent of injury sustained by her on her eyes. 12. The evidence is supported by the certificate issued by various advance M edical centres . It is clear that as a result of sustaining injury in the said accident ,her left eye was not cured even after three operations and finally, s he had to bear with her visual impairment by 40% and thus became physically (vis ually) handicapped for rest of her life. 13. The learned Member, MACT, did not calculate the loss of income in terms of the age of the claimant. However, after due evaluation of the evidence on re cord and on the basis of the injury sustained by the claimant, the learned Memb er, MACT awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00000/- keeping in view the injury s ustained by the claimant due to loss of eye sight and future loss of income. The learned Member, MACT further considered that the claimant could not continue he r study properly for loss of vision of her eyes. 14. Mr. K.P.Singh learned counsel for the appellant also disputed that the claimant was not a student at the time of accident, and therefore, the award of Rs. 20,000/- for the loss of study is not just and proper. However, on perusal o f the materials on record, it appears that the appellant never disputed in the w ritten statement that the claimant was not a student at the time of accident. Th e claimant asserted in her claimed petition as well as her deposition that she was a student at the time of accident. It was not disputed by the appellant duri ng her cross-examination. Therefore, the claimant being a student at the time of accident cannot be disputed by the appellant at this stage. 15. However, the learned counsel for the appellant in usual fairness has not disputed the claim of the claimant/O.P on the cost treatment, for transportati on during treatment, for pain and suffering, and for cost of staying at lodge, awarded by the learned Tribunal. 16. Obviously, but for the injury to her eyes , she could have selected a g ood life partner and also could have expected a better prospect of getting good job on completion of her studies. Therefore, in my considered opinion , the re asoning and justification given by the Tribunal for assessing the loss of income of the claimant/respondent, for losing her eye sight, do not warrant any interf erence by this court. 17. On careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and on ev aluation of the evidence of the witnesses, I do not find any good ground to inte rfere with the impugned award made by the learned Tribunal. 18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed. 19. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I pass no order as to costs. 20. Send back the Lower Court Record.