JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel for the Appellants-Insurance company and Driver of the insured vehicle and Mr. V. Menezes, learned counsel for Respondent-claimant.

2. On 17th December, 2015, this Court, made the following order:

"Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. It is submitted that the appellants are only restricting the challenge to the quantum of compensation granted. The learned counsel submits that according to the appellants, the respondent would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

3. Nonetheless, as there is an award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it is submitted that without prejudice to the contentions of the appellants, the appellants are ready to deposit the entire amount of the award before this Court, within a period of four weeks.

4. Hence, issue notice to the respondent, for final disposal, returnable on 14.01.2016."

3. Accordingly, Mr. Kakodkar advanced submissions and was heard on the issue of award of compensation, which according to him, was exorbitant in the present case.

4. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22nd June, 2015 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, at Panaji disposing of Claim Petition No. 38/2012 by awarding claimant the compensation of Rs. 36,65,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization.

5. The claim petition, in which the impugned judgment and award came to be made was instituted by the claimant on account of permanent injuries suffered by him due to the accident which took place on 30th November, 2010 at 1.30 p.m., when the claimant alongwith his friend were proceeding from Shiroda via Loutolim on a Honda Twister motor cycle bearing registration No. GA-07-H-6691. The insured vehicle i.e. a truck bearing registration No. GA-04-E-2275 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side (in "No Entry" zone) dashed the motor cycle.

6. Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel for the Appellants submits that in this case the claimant has clearly suppressed the fact that after the accident of 30th November, 2010, the claimant, was involved in yet another accident which took place on 10th March, 2011, in the course of which the claimant, suffered injuries to the same hand, which is alleged to be permanently disabled on account of the first accident dated 30th November, 2010. He submits that it is only in the course of the cross examination of claimant's friend (AW3) that this fact emerged. He submits that leave was applied for and was granted to re-cross examine the claimant and in the course of such re-cross examination, this position was proved beyond doubt. Mr. Kakodkar submits that such suppression casts a serious doubt as to whether the so called permanent disability had any nexus whatsoever with the first accident of 30th November, 2010, which is the basis for the claim.

7. Mr. Kakodkar submits that it was the duty of the claimant to be candid to the Court and to further establish by the test of preponderance of probability that the injuries or rather the so called permanent disablement had nexus with the first accident dated 30th November, 2010 or that the same had no nexus whatsoever with the second accident dated 10th March, 2011. Since, no evidence has been led by the claimant on this aspect, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) clearly erred in accepting the case put forth by the claimant.

8. Mr. Kakodkar, then submitted that in any case the award of compensation is too excessive. He submits that there is absolutely no evidence produced on record by the claimant that he was indeed offered employment with salary of Rs. 17,000/- per month by HCL in Pune. He submits that the MACT has clearly erred in accepting the claimant's case that he would have earned a salary of Rs. 17,000/- per month but for injuries sustained by him in the accident.

9. Mr. Kakodkar submits that the MA