ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Both these appeals witness a challenge to the judgment and order dated 25.01.2016 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.358/2011 preferred by the appellants Dixit Kumar and Nitin Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “opposite party”) against the award dated 18.12.2010 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in MACT No.1084/2004 (old No.543/2003). By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has reduced the amount of compensation of Rs.15,51,030/-granted by the Tribunal to Rs.7,90,000/-. The claim petition was made before the Tribunal by the respondent Om Prakash Goel (hereinafter referred to as the “claimant”) through his son/next friend Vikas Goel under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs.20 lacs as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident involving the Maruti Car No.DL-3C-F-1400 which at the relevant time was driven by the appellant Dixit Kumar. The present appeals are by both the sides, the claimant being aggrieved by the reduction of the award in amount by the High Court and the opposite party in the claim proceedings, by the denial of exoneration of liability.

3. We have heard Mr. Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party and Mr. Anunaya Mehta, learned counsel for the claimant.

4. The facts lie in a narrow compass and provide the essential backdrop of the litigation. On 07.08.2002 at about 7.30 a.m. while the claimant Om Prakash Goel was travelling on the pillion of the scooter No.DL-8S-F-9713 being driven by his son/next friend, Vikas Goel, the Maruti Car referred to hereinabove, being driven rashly and negligently, dashed it from behind, as a result whereof the occupants of the scooter fell down and in the process, the claimant suffered multiple injuries on his head and also sustained fractures. According to the claimant, though for treatment he was taken to the hospital, the injuries sustained by him wholly left him permanently disabled. The claim petition disclosed that at that time, the claimant was running a business in the name of M/s. Shiv Traders at Peeragari, Delhi and was an Income Tax Assessee.

5. In the written statement filed by the opposite party in the claim proceedings, they denied the accident and pleaded that the claim be dismissed. They stated that a similar claim had been made earlier on the same cause of action which was dismissed and that therefore on that ground alone the claim petition was not maintainable.

6. Both sides adduced evidence, oral and documentary and the Tribunal returned a finding that the accident did occur due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car and that the claimant Om Prakash Goel had sustained injuries in the same. The Tribunal granted compensation on various heads and in assessing the same, principally took note of the oral and documentary evidence with regard to the physical state of the claimant as a result of the injuries sustained. It took note amongst others of the disability certificate Ext.PW-2/K proved by the doctor concerned who assessed the permanent physical disability of the claimant to the extent of 50% due to post traumatic hemiparasis of the left side of the body. The doctor, PW-2 opined that in the kind of permanent physical disability involved, the patient cannot be cured by medicines or surgery. The Tribunal also took into consideration the testimony of PW-1, the son of the claimant to the effect that he (claimant) had been bed ridden and that he had also become 50% mentally retarded following the trauma and the injuries suffered. The Tribunal in addition noted the evidence of PW-1, the son of the claimant that half portion of the body of the claimant had become totally paralyzed so much so that he was left in no state to conduct his business in future. The Tribunal thus assessed the functional disability of the claimant to be 100%. On an overall assessment relating to the injuries suffered, the a