JUDGMENT

anuja Prabhudessai, J. - This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act') challenging the judgment and award dated 13/03/2018 in Claim Petition No.213/2015. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the Petition under Section 166 of the said act and directed the appellant and the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay to the Claimant compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till final realization.

02] The brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under:

The Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claimant'), had filed Petition under Section 166 of the said act alleging that he along with other labourers was returning to village Nerpinglai by Tata 407 Truck bearing No.MH-11/aG-2161. The said truck was driven by the Respondent No.2 at excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. When they reached near Talani Phata on Morshi-amravati Road, one Tata Ex Vehicle bearing No.MH-27/X-4621 came from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in collision between both the vehicles. as a result, the Claimant sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent disablement.

03] The Claimant claimed that at the time of the accident, he was 25 years of age and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as a labourer. The Claimant further claimed that he is unable to work due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The Claimant further claimed that he had incurred medical expenses of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.68,44,000/- under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads.

04] The Respondent No.2 denied that he had driven the Tata 407 Truck bearing No.MH-11/aG-2161 in a rash and negligent manner. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 claimed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata Ex Vehicle bearing No.MH-27/ X-4621. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also denied the age, occupation and income of the Claimant and contended that the Claimant is not entitled for compensation as claimed. The Respondent No.2 stated that the vehicle was duly registered with the appellant Insurance Company.

05] The appellant Insurance Company, the insurer of the Tata 407 Truck bearing No.MH-11/aG-2161, claimed that said truck was driven without a valid driving licence. It was also averred that the vehicle was driven without fitness certificate, permit and PUC certificate. The appellant Insurance Company also claimed that the Claimant was travelling in a goods carriage vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and hence denied its liability to indemnify the insured for breach of terms and conditions of the policy.

06] The driver and the owner of the Tata Ex Vehicle bearing No.MH-27/X-4621 also filed their written statement denying the mode and manner of the accident as well as the age, occupation and income of the Claimant. They claimed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the Respondent No.2 - driver of the Tata 407 Truck bearing No.MH-11/aG-2161.

07] The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the Respondent No.2 - driver of the Tata 407 Truck bearing No.MH-11/aG-2161. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the Claimant had suffered 100% disability.

The Claimant was 25 years of age and considered his notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month and on applying multiplier of 17, the Tribunal assessed future loss of income at Rs.9,18,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded compensation on other heads such as medical expenses, attendance charges, permanent disability etc. and awarded total compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal and not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Claimant has filed Cross-objection under Order XLI Rule