The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in proving the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident and the assessment of compensation based on minimum wages payable to a semi-skilled worker.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. The above captioned two appeals arise out of impugned Award of 17th December, 2012, vide which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as “the Tribunal”) has awarded compensation of Rs. 34,95,700/- to a Chowkidar-Suresh, aged 45 years, who was grievously injured in a vehicular accident which took place on 10th July, 2010. The Tribunal has granted interest @ 9% per annum on Rs. 3,44,100/- while excluding interest on future medical expenses.

2. In the above captioned first appeal, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (henceforth referred to as the “Insurer”) seeks exoneration from paying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas in the above captioned second appeal, Injured-Suresh (henceforth referred to as the Injured) seeks enhancement in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Since these two appeals arise out of one vehicular accident, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

4. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned Award, is as under:-

“Briefly, the facts are that on 10.07.10, the petitioner was going to his place of duty from his house on a scooter bearing no. DL 3S BT 0272 being driven by respondent no. 1 in a zig zag manner and at a high speed came from the opposite side and hit his scooter. He fell down and sustained head injuries. He was taken to Safdarjung Hospital. A case was registered at the Police Station Mehrauli vide FIR No. 292/10. The petitioner was a Chowkidar in MCD and used to get Rs. 13677/- p.m. After the accident, he could not resume his duty and became permanent disabled. Respondent no. 2 was the owner of the motorcycle and it was insured with respondent no. 3. A Detailed Accident Report was also filed by the SHO of the police station which was clubbed with the petition. On the DAR a reply/legal offer of Rs. 50760/- was also filed by the insurance company. Respondent no. 1 and 2 did not contest the petition.”

5. To render the impugned Award, the Tribunal has relied upon evidence of wife of the Injured-Suresh, Disability Certificate of 30th March, 2012 and the other evidence on record. As per the aforesaid Disability Certificate of 30th March, 2012, the Injured has become 90% permanently disabled in relation to his whole body and the Tribunal has assessed his “functional disability” to be 100% as he is in totally vegetative state. The Tribunal has considered “loss of income” and “future income” while taking Injured's net salary of Rs. 12,507/- per month and has applied the multiplier of 14. Addition of 30% has been made by the Tribunal while taking into account the inflation aspect.

6. The breakup of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Injured–Suresh is as under:-

1.	Medical expenses	Rs. 20,000/-
2.	Future Medical Expenses	Rs. 20,000/-
3.	Pain, Sufferings and Enjoyment of life	Rs. 1,00,000/-
4.	Special Diet and Conveyance	Rs. 24,000/-
5.	Attendant Charges	Rs. 4,00,000/-
6.	Loss of Income	Rs. 1,00,100/-
7.	Loss of Future Income	Rs. 27,31,600/-
8.	Loss of Amenities	Rs. 1,00,000/-
	Total	Rs. 34,95,700/-

7. The challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for Insurer is on the ground that involvement of insured motor vehicle in the accident in question does not stand proved. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously relied upon the evidence of alleged eye-witness Manish Kumar (PW-2). It is pointed out that in the claim petition, it is stated that somebody informed the family of the Injured about this accident and then they took the Injured to their home, which was nearby. So, it is submitted that the presence of the alleged eye-witness - Manish Kumar (PW-2) at the spot is clearly ruled out. It is further pointed out