The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing a claim petition, the need for just compensation, and the importance of providing adequate evidence for income claims.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 29.04.2015 in Claim Petition No.46/2010, by which the Motor accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) awarded compensation of Rs. 15,80,000/- to the Claimant Mr. C.J. Jogy for injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident. The First appeal No.94/2015 is instituted by the owner/driver and the Insurance Company, and the First appeal No.140/2017 is instituted by the Claimant. Hence, it is only appropriate for a common judgment and order to dispose of both these appeals.

3. Even after the conclusion of the arguments, efforts were made to see if these appeals could be settled amicably. The Counsel also made efforts in this direction. Unfortunately, however, no settlement could be arrived at. The vacations then intervened. Whatever the outcome of these appeals, I still feel that the parties should once again attempt a settlement on mutually beneficial terms.

4. Mr. E. afonso, the learned Counsel for the appellants in First appeal No.94/2015, submitted that the accident took place on 06.02.2001, but the claim petition was filed after an inordinate delay of over nine years, i.e., on 11.06.2010. He submitted that there was no explanation for this delay. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that even though there may be no limitation period, the claim had to be filed within a reasonable time. He relied on Purohit & Company V/s. Khatoonbee & anr. (2017) 4 SCC 783 to submit that the Tribunal on delay and laches should have dismissed the claim petition.

5. Without prejudice, Mr. afonso submitted that antonio D'Souza (aW3) was a got-up witness, and his testimony was wrongly relied upon by the Tribunal. He submitted that even otherwise, the evidence on record bears out that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving by the Claimant. Further, he submitted that the findings on disability or income are also not supported by the evidence on record. Mr. afonso relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Mr. Neelesh Raghvendra Naik & Ors. First appeal No.108/2013 decided on 19.01.2022, Laxman Vithoba Gaunkar V/s. Sudesh Gaunkar & Ors. 2011 aCJ 1916 (Bom.) and Pukh Raj Bumb V/s. Jagannath atchut Naik 2013 STPL 17081 Bombayin support of his contentions.

6. Mr. afonso, based on the above contentions, submitted that First appeal No.94/2015 may be allowed and First appeal No.140/2017 may be dismissed.

7. Mr. agni, learned Counsel for the Claimant, defended the impugned award but submitted that the compensation awarded is too less and additional compensation is due to the Claimant. He submitted that no period of limitation had been prescribed for instituting a claim petition. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in relying on The New India assurance Company V/s. C. Padma and anr. 1997 (1) CTC 761 and entertaining the claim petition. He submitted that sufficient cause was otherwise shown in the claim petition to explain why the claim petition was lodged after nine years. He refers to the pleadings in paragraph 23 of the claim petition in this regard.

8. Mr. agni submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award just compensation in this matter. He submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the correct income, and compensation towards medical expenses was also unduly curtailed. He submitted that the Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach by insisting upon tax returns. He submitted that the compensation awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages was too inadequate.

9. Mr. agni, based on the above contentions, submitted that First appeal No.94/2015 may be dismissed and First appeal No.140/2017 may be allowed and the compensation suitably enhanced.

10. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

11. Based on the pleadings as well as contentions raised in these two appeals, the following points arise for determination:-

(a) Was the Tribunal justified in entertaining claim petition no.46/2010 that was inst