The main legal point established in this judgment is the liability of the Insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to pay compensation to the claimant for injuries sustained in a motor accident caused by the rashness and negligence of the truck driver.

1. This is an Insurer's appeal assailing the Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao dated 10.12.2008 pursuant to which the then learned Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T. Margao allowed the petition partly holding the first set of the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation in the amount of Rs. 7,03,356/-with interest to the claimants and exonerating the respondents no.4 and 5 from any liability arising from the same accident. The cross-objections are at the instance of the original claimant-respondent no.1 feeling aggrieved by the findings of the learned M.A.C.T. pursuant to which certain amounts were not awarded in his favour and pressing for a reversal of the impugned judgment on the limited extent by the grant of the said benefits in his favour on various heads set out in detail therein. Suffice it to say that the parties would be referred to as the Insurer, the claimant and the respondents for brevity's sake hereinafter.

2. Shri A.R. Kantak, learned Advocate for the Insurer gave a brief account of the accident which had taken place on 10.4.2005 at 15.15 hours on NH-17-A allegedly involving the truck insured with them and the KTC bus owned by the respondents no.5 and driven by the respondent no.4 in which the respondent no.1/claimant had suffered grievous injuries. He adverted to the judgment under challenge, referred to the Scene of the accident panchanama and the Accident Report Forms, apart from the evidence and submitted that the claimant had failed to show the rashness and negligence of the vehicle insured with them resulting in the accident. Quite on the contrary, the accident was an outcome of the fast speed, rashness and negligence of the KTC bus driver and that of the motorcycle rider which had resulted in the accident.

3. Shri A.R. Kantak contended that on the quantum too, the learned MACT had been more than generous in granting the compensation to the claimant on the head of permanent disability even though the claimant did not suffer any impediment in his business despite the 50% permanent disability. The learned MACT had also committed an error in considering the income relied upon on behalf of the claimant which was for the Accounting Year 31.3.2004 when it should have been counted as 31.3.2005 and 31.3.2006 considering the date of the accident as 10.4.2005. These Income Tax Returns were suppressed and, therefore, an adverse inference had to be drawn against the claimant. On all these parameters, the impugned judgment on the aspect of the rashness and negligence fastened on their vehicle driver had to be released and the appeal allowed in their favour.

4. Shri S.S. Kakodkar, learned Advocate for the original claimant adverted to the pleadings, both in the petition as well as in the written statement filed in defence and submitted that the accident was an outcome of the rashness and negligence of the truck driver and no fault could be attributed either to the claimant or to the driver of the KTC bus who was rightly exonerated by the learned MACT. His next contention was that the appeal at the instance of the Insurer was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as no permission was sought under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (“Act” for short). He relied in Narendra Kumar and another Vs. Yarenissa and others [1997(2)T.A.C.1(S.C.)] and Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Hanamava Yamanappa Jedi & Ors. [2014(3) ALL MR 869].

5. Shri S.S.Kakodkar, learned Advocate for the original claimant invited attention to the Accident Information Reports in respect of the vehicles involved in the accident particularly vis-a-vis the truck and the bus in question and submitted that the dash of the truck to the bus was amply established on the right hand side. He adverted to the sketch accompanying the panchanama, the position of the truck, post accident, and submitted that the learned MACT had examined in minute detail the evidence on r