Judgment :

GANGULY, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. On 18.5.1990, the appellant and others were going in a Fiat car (No. GGG 792), owned by the second respondent, from Surat to Ubhrat. The said car was driven by the first respondent, who lost control of the car and dashed the car with full force against a milestone, after which the car turned turtle thrice. As a result, the occupants of the car sustained serious injuries.

4. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. At the time of the accident, she was aged 30 years and she claimed to be earning Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,600/- per month from running a business in the name of Contessa Beauty Parlour at Ahmedabad.

5. Before the MACT it was established that the first respondent was absolutely liable for the accident in view of his careless, rash and negligent driving. Thus, the first respondent (driver), second respondent (owner of the car) and the third respondent (insurance company with which the car was insured) were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant. In the accident, the spinal cord of the appellant was damaged, as a result of which she was unable to walk and was bedridden. In computing the compensation payable to the appellant, the MACT, by order dated 23.3.2001, reached a finding that the compensation had been computed with the consent of the parties.

6. MACT awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,50,000/- towards treatment charges, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- towards nutritious food. The appellant had contended that she was running a beauty parlour, but no reliable evidence was produced to substantiate the same. Thus, appellant being a housewife, monthly income was assessed at Rs.1000/-and applying a multiplier of 16, the future loss of income was assessed at Rs.1,92,000/-(Rs.1000 X 12 X 16). Thus, the appellant was held entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,07,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%.

7. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the MACT, the appellant appealed to the High Court for enhancement of compensation. The High Court, vide order dated 6.7.2005, dismissed the appeal on the following ground:

"Through these appeals judgment of the MACT Valsad at Navsari dated 23.3.2001 is assailed on the ground that proper compensation has not been awarded, therefore, it be enhanced. However, after hearing the counsel for both the sides, it is found that the compensation has been settled as per the consent of the counsel for the parties. This fact is recorded in Para 10 of the award. That being so, interference is not called for. Shri Parikh, learned counsel for the appellants want to place on record affidavit of Shri K.Z. Rifai, Advocate dated August 5, 2002 to point out that neither any pursis in writing was passed to the Claims Tribunal nor while arguing, such consent was given, fact appears to have been recorded erroneously. Placement of affidavit at this stage is after thought, therefore, declined. In such case no such agreement was there with regard to the amount of compensation as mentioned in the judgment, averment to that effect ought to have found place in the memorandum of appeal dated 20th June, 2001. Judgment record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant can claim to contradict it, except before the judge himself but nowhere else. Court is bound to accept the statement of the judge recorded in the judgment as what transpired in the court and cannot allow statement of the Judge to be contradicted by statement by affidavit and other evidence (See: Daman Singh and others etc. v. State of Punjab and others (AIR 1985 SC 973). Accordingly, claim for enhancement cannot be considered in light of the agreement by counsel for parties before the Claims Tribunal."

8. This appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.

9. The appellant contends that there was no consent before the M