The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for further inquiry into future medical expenditure and the consideration of recent Supreme Court decisions on future prospects in determining compensation.

1. Neha Walia (claimant), then aged 22 years, pursuing a course of study leading to graduation, statedly having worked as an associate with a private entity (Wipro Spectramind) and as a Sales Consultant with another entity (M/s. Tecnovate eSolutions Pvt. Ltd.), was travelling as a passenger on the rear seat in Lancer car bearing registration no.DL-9CC-4214 driven at the relevant point of time by Mohit Badlani (driver), the car being registered in the name of Anil Moolchandani (registered owner) at whose instance it had been insured against third party risk with National Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer). The car met with an accident near Andheria More red light crossing, Subu House opposite Ambedkar Colony ending up striking against a tree, resulting in all the occupants of the car including the claimant suffering injuries. She instituted accident claim case (suit no.456/2010) on 20.11.2007 on the averments that the car had been driven in negligent manner by the aforementioned driver, this being the cause for the accident.

2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry into the claim petition which had been contested by the party respondents including the driver and owner, the defence taken being that the accident had occurred when the vehicle swerved in order to avoid a bullock cart which had suddenly come in the way from the wrong side. The tribunal, by judgment dated 01.09.2012, held that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the car by Mohit Badlani, a respondent in these appeals. It thus held him and the respondent/owner of the car, jointly and severally, liable to pay the compensation.

3. The insurer had raised the defence that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the car driver was under the influence of alcohol. This plea was rejected by the tribunal primarily for the reason that mere reference to smell of alcohol appearing in the medical record (MLC) vis-à-vis the said driver was not sufficient, there having been no test undertaken to confirm the extent of alcohol in his blood or urine samples. The tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.63,61,000/- calculating it thus :

Medical expenses	Rs.10,00,000/
Pain & suffering & enjoyment of life	Rs.2,00,000/
Special diet & conveyance charges	Rs.57,000/
Nursing charges	Rs.2,00,000/
Attendant charges	Rs.4,00,000/
Future loss of income on account of permanent disability	Rs.43,29,000/
Loss of amenities	Rs.2,00,000/
Total	Rs.63,86,000/
Less : interim compensation paid vide order dated 15.07.2008	Rs.25,000/
Net amount	Rs.63,61,000/

4. It directed the insurer to pay the above mentioned amount to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

5. Both the insurer and the claimant, having felt aggrieved, have come up with their respective appeals assailing the judgment of the tribunal. The insurer argues that mere reference to smell of alcohol in MLC should have been accepted as proof of not only rash driving but also of the driver being under the influence of alcohol referring in this context to the observations of the Supreme Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648. The insurer also questions the award on the ground that the income tax liability has not been deducted before calculating the loss of income and that the levy of interest on the amounts payable in future was inappropriate, referring in this context to the decision in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control India Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ (SC) 366.

6. Per contra, the claimant has argued that the award of compensation granted is deficient for the reason the actual medical expenditure though proved has not been taken care of; there is no proper consideration of the need for future medical expenditure; the inclusion of future prospects