The main legal point established is the determination of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act for negligent driving and the calculation of compensation for injuries and related expenses.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

1. P.K. Jain (appellant in MAC Appeal No. 971/2006) was crossing the road, accompanied by his wife, at a place near Jeevan Nursing Home, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi at about 8.20 p.m. on 28.09.1998 when Ambassador car bearing registration No. UP 14 C 9096 (the ambassador car) statedly came at high speed in a rash/negligent manner and hit against maruti car bearing No. DL 2CG 3570 (maruti car) moving ahead which in turn hit against him (P.K. Jain) causing grievous injuries on his person.

2. It appears that claim petition under Sections 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), was preferred on 24.03.1999 registered as claim case No. 260/1999 but the same was dismissed in default on 09.10.2000. On the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), however, the said case was restored and taken up for further proceedings. In the claim case, as initially presented, reference was made to the role of the ambassador car with the allegations that the accident had occurred due to rash/negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver Praveen Chaudhary, it being a vehicle registered in the name of Executive Engineer, UP State Electricity Board (UPSEB), both of whom were impleaded as first and second respondents (they being now the appellants in connected MAC Appeal No. 141/2008). After the restoration, the claimant amended the petition on 26th August, 2004 wherein the sequence of events leading to the accident was elaborated by reference being made additionally to the involvement of the maruti car.

3. Though in the written statement of Praveen Chaudhary and UPSEB (hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondents) it was claimed that the accident had occurred due to rash/negligent driving of the maruti car and a preliminary objection was taken that the claim petition was defective on account of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties relating to the said other vehicle, the said persons were not impleaded as party at any stage.

4. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 10.07.2006, held that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the ambassador car by its driver, thus holding the contesting respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Before the tribunal, it was proved to its satisfaction that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries to such extent that he had been rendered paraplegic below waist, his disability, permanent in nature, having been assessed to the extent of 100%. It may be added here that there is no challenge to the finding to such effect rendered by the tribunal.

5. The tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 13,35,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

6. Before proceeding further, this Court is constrained to observe that though the impugned judgment separately passed by the tribunal indicated that the claim petition had been allowed and compensation was awarded, by a separate short order passed on the same date, (page 14 of the record of MAC Appeal No. 971/2006) it observed that “petition stands dismissed”. Apparently, the order was mechanically recorded and signed by the presiding officer of the tribunal, which is not proper.

7. The claimant preferred an appeal in December, 2006 (MAC Appeal No. 971/2006) seeking enhancement. Initially, the grievances were with regard to the calculation of loss of future income, medical expenses and attendant charges. During the hearing on the said appeal, it was, however, submitted that claimant had had to undergo further treatment which have resulted in further medical expenditure. It has been pointed out that in the award granted by the tribunal, there was no provision made for further medical expenses, even upon it being shown that condition of the claimant was so poor that he would be dependent on others throughout his life having been rendered in vegetative state. On the request of the appellant unde