The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation claims based on the evidence presented, and the application of relevant case law to support such enhancements.

JUDGMENT

R.D. Dhanuka, J. - By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant (original claimant) has impugned the judgment and award dated 26th July, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "M.A.C.T., Mumbai") in Application No. 1789 of 2000 partly rejecting the claims made by the appellant and only directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4,12,042/- inclusive of 'No Fault Liability' of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its realization as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest made by the appellant. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this First Appeal are as under :-

2. It was the case of the appellant that on 25th April, 2000 at about 9:00 a.m., the appellant after completing his work in his garage was going for some work on his Motor Scooter bearing registration No. MH-04-A-3715. When the appellant reached at Kasheli bridge, the offending vehicle i.e. S.T. Bus bearing registration No.MH-20-D-1460 came in fast speed from behind and gave dash to the scooter being driven by the appellant. The appellant fell down and front wheel of the offending vehicle ran over to his right hand. The appellant sustained serious crush injury and was admitted to Civil Hospital, Thane. His left hand was amputated above elbow. It was the case of the appellant that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. It was the case of the appellant that he was a motor mechanic and his income was Rs.5,000/- p.m. He filed an application inter-alia praying for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondent. The said claim was resisted by the respondent by filing a written statement. It was the case of the respondent that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle at moderate speed with all care and caution on the correct side of the road. Near Kasheli bridge, the appellant was proceeding in the same direction of the bus in high speed and was trying to overtake the said offending vehicle by the left side without giving any signal to the driver of the offending vehicle. It was the case of the respondent that as a result of that the appellant came in contact with the left side of the offending vehicle and fell down. The appellant tried to pass through the narrow gap between the bus and metal road. The respondent pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and thus claim made by the appellant shall be dismissed with cost.

4. The Tribunal framed three issues for determination. The appellant entered the witness box by filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and was cross-examined by the respondent. The applicant also examined Dr.Satish Radhakishor Wagh, Orthopedic Surgeon as one of the witness who was also cross-examined by the respondent. The respondent examined the Mr. Vishnu Hinder Patil, bus conductor of the offending vehicle who filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and was cross-examined by the appellant's advocate.

5. The Tribunal delivered a judgment and award dated 26th July, 2005 and partly allowed the claim application filed by the appellant and directed the respondent only to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,12,042/- including 'No Fault Liability' amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its realization. The respondent did not challenge the said judgment and award dated 26th July, 2005 nor filed any cross-objection in this First Appeal. The appellant however impugned a part of the said judgment and award on various grounds.

6. Mr. A. M. Gokhale, learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to various documents annexed to the paper book, evidence led by the parties and also to the findings rendered by the Tribunal. It is submitted that though the appellant had examined the Doctor who