PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the award dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 10,58,101/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till its realization was awarded to Tarandeep Singh Anand who suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 11.2.2006.

2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the claimant/injured suffered injuries while he was going on his motor cycle and was hit by the TSR No. DL IRG 3713 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Asgar Khan, the driver. The learned Tribunal further observed that the injured was earning Rs. 1.5 lakhs per annum. He had remained confined to bed for about six months and had also spent on conveyance, special diet. There was loss of income as he could not perform his job. The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,58,101/- to the claimant alognwith interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of filing the petition.

3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant in MAC Appeal No. 35 of 2012 shall be referred to as the Insurance Company, whereas the Appellants in MAC Appeal No. 285 of 2012 shall be referred to as the claimants.

4. The finding on negligence has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company at the time of hearing of the appeal. Even no appeal has been preferred by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, hence, the same has attained finality.

5. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Mr. D.D. Singh, Advocate has submitted that the claimant is seeking enhancement of the compensation in cross appeal bearing MAC Appeal No. 285 of 2012 on account of diminishing memory and constant headache and has tried to connect the head injury with the accident dated 11.2.2006. Referring to the statement of PW-3, Dr. K.K. Kumra, DDU Hospital, Mr. D.D. Singh, Advocate has submitted that in the said disability certificate Ex.PW1/2, the percentage of the disability has been shown as 46% whereas Dr. Kumra specifically stated that disability as per the certificate is only 6% and the said certificate has been tampered with. While referring to the another disability certificate showing the disability to the extent of 24% it has been submitted that the same has been issued by RTRM Hospital by the doctor who has not treated the claimant and thus could not have certified the disability. The disability in this case being 6% as per Dr. K.K. Kumra, the treating Doctor, the Court should have awarded the compensation in view of that certificate only.

6. Learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that before the Tribunal there was no evidence to prove that the claimant suffered head injury. During pendency of appeal, the application under Order XLI Rule 27 was allowed by this Court. Dr. Rajesh Acharya, Senior Consultant, Department of Neurosurgery was examined on 19.12.2013 who has made his statement without producing the record. Even otherwise the prescription Ex.AW1/A of Dr. Rajesh Acharya reflect that the head injury was suffered on 12.01.2006 whereas the date of accident in this case is 11.02.2006 which shows that the head injury had nothing to do with the compensation claimed in this petition which was suffered a month prior to suffering injuries in this accident.

7. Learned counsel for the insurance company has also urged before this Court that the claimant in this case had worked just for about three months before suffering injuries in this accident. In that circumstance, the learned Tribunal should have granted compensation calculating the same as per minimum wages payable to a matriculate. He has submitted that the claimant has not placed on record any document regarding his qualification as 12th pass or having acquired any skill, hence the compensation