The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the genuineness of insurance documents and the liability of the insurance company. It also emphasizes the need for criminal action in cases of forgery.

R.K. GAUBA, J.

1. Rakesh Kumar Arora s/o T.R. Arora (the appellant in MAC APP. No. 353/2006) had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident on 26.07.2000 in the area of Anupam Apartments, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi involving a Maruti car bearing registration no.DL-6CE-2181 ("the offending vehicle"). He took out claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MV Act") on 09.01.2001, seeking compensation in the sum of Rs.15 lacs, inter-alia, claiming that he had suffered permanent disability. He impleaded Rinku Aggarwal in the array of parties (first respondent in MAC APP. No.353/2006) alleging that he was driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. He also impleaded Purshottam Lal (second respondent in MAC APP. No.353/2006) in the array of parties stating that he was registered owner of the offending vehicle. The New India Assurance Company, 415, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi (appellant in MAC APP. No. 99/2006) was shown in the array of parties (as respondent no.3) with the allegations that the offending vehicle was insured with it. The claim petition, registered as suit no.251/2004, was inquired into and decided by the motor accident claims tribunal ("the tribunal") by judgment dated 28.10.2005 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.4,35,000/- was granted in favour of the appellant Rakesh Kumar Arora (hereinafter referred to as "the claimant") with interest payable @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition (09.01.2001) till realization. The driver (Rinku Aggarwal) and owner (Purshottam Lal) were held liable to pay the compensation amount with the finding that they were the principal tortfeasor and the person vicariously liable respectively. The appellant/insurance company was directed to pay the compensation amount holding it statutorily and contractually liable.

2. Both the claimant and the insurance company, feeling aggrieved with the judgment and award, have come up to this court with their respective appeals under Section 173 of MV Act. While the claimant, by his appeal (MACA no.353/2006), claimed enhancement on various grounds, the insurance company, by its appeal (MACA no. 99/2006), has questioned the findings recorded by the tribunal in the impugned judgment rejecting its contention that it was not liable since the cover note relied upon to claim insurance policy, was forged and fabricated document.

3. Given the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is proper that the appeal of the claimant is taken up first.

4. The compensation in the sum of Rs.4,35,000/- had been awarded to the claimants, break up of which is, Rs.2,70,000/- granted towards future income loss on account of permanent disability factor; Rs.50,000/- awarded as lump sum compensation for loss on account of claimant having been constrained to be on leave of absence from his official duty for a period of 13 months (w.e.f 27.07.2000 to 04.09.2001); attendant charges assessed at Rs.15,000/-; compensation on account of medical treatment, conveyance and special diet worked out as composite Rs.50,000/-; and, non-pecuniary damages on account of pain and agony on one hand and the loss of enjoyment of life amenities on the other compensated at Rs.25,000/- each.

5. In his appeal, the claimant also claimed enhancement of award for loss of future income on the ground that the disability has been under-assessed (at 10%). But, at the hearing, learned counsel representing the claimant conceded that the award of compensation was just and proper and, therefore, the appeal to that extent is not pressed.

6. The grievance of the claimant on account of compensation towards loss on account of leave is also based on the claim that the income has been wrongly computed and restricted at Rs.15,000/- per month. It is the claim of the appellant (claimant) that he was working as a Manager (Human Resources) in M/s Ircon International Limited (a Government of India undertaking) at the re