1. This appeal seeks to assail the judgment dated 28.07.15 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal) directing the appellant (insurer) to pay compensation to the first respondent.

2. The first respondent (the claimant) claiming to be then a resident of Delhi working for gain in private establishment described as Ambika Auto Industries, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, is stated to have suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 06.05.2007 at Tharmaajupalli village, near Panyam on National Highway no.18 in State of Andhra Pradesh, it becoming subject matter of FIR No.55/2007, registered by Police Station Panyam for offences under Sections 279/337/338 IPC. It is stated by him that the accident had involved collision between two motor vehicles, one being the motor cycle which he was riding on the pillion and the other described as mini lorry no.AP-03U-9976. Pertinent to note here that the particulars of the motorcycle were not mentioned by the first respondent (the claimant) either in the petition or in the course of his testimony. Be that as it may, he filed an accident claim case (Suit No.131/2012) five years after the occurrence, on 25.04.2012, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal) at Delhi, though his native address is of District Ranga Reddy in State of Andhra Pradesh. In the said claim petition, he impleaded the second and third respondents herein as party respondents no.1 and 2 on the plea that they were driver and owner respectively of the mini lorry and that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the said vehicle. The appellant insurance company had admittedly issued the insurance policy covering third party risk in respect of said vehicle and was also impleaded in the array before the tribunal as third respondent. The first and second respondents (residents of District Chittoor, State of Andhra Pradesh) appear to have suffered the proceedings ex parte, the only contest being on behalf of the appellant insurance company.

3. During the inquiry, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. With the said affidavit, he placed on record proof of his identity and address, copies of election Identity Card (Ex.PW1/1), ration card (Ex.PW-1/2), salary certificate purporting to have been issued by his previous employer (Ex.PW-1/3) and salary certificate issued by Shri Ram Engineering, another entity with which he claims to have later joined (photocopy found on the Tribunal’s record after page no.181 and before page no.185), the said document neither bearing page number nor any exhibit or endorsement of the tribunal. He also filed copy of PAN card, referring to it as Ex.PW-1/5, though such document (at page 193 on the tribunal’s record) is bearing endorsement as Ex.PW-1/4. He further submitted with the said affidavit copies of medical records (Ex.PW-1/6, collectively) and of bills showing purchase of medicines reflecting expenditure on that account (Ex.PW-1/7, collectively). He also tendered his petition in evidence (as Ex.P1). On the said affidavit, he was cross-examined by the counsel for the third respondent (the insurer) disputing the claim with regard to private employment with the above-mentioned entity (Ambika Auto Industries).

4. The tribunal considered the evidence and accepted the claim about injuries having been suffered due to negligent driving of the lorry and computing the compensation in the following manner:-

“9. Petitioner is an injured and hence a natural eye witness of accident. No contradiction appeared in his statement, despite being cross-examination by ld. counsel for respondent no.3. I have no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Considering the same as well as medical record of petitioner i.e. wound certificate (Ex.PW1/5), medical prescriptions (Ex.PW-1/6, Ex.PW1/7 & PW-1/8), it is well established that petitioner suffered injuries in accident in question caused due to rash and negligent driving of