The liability of the Insurance Company and the calculation of compensation under various heads were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East District, Delhi in MACT case no. 82/2011 vide the Award dated 15.05.2013 ("impugned Award") accepted the claim and awarded a compensation of Rs.32,75,505/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred and Five only) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the present petition till the date of realization in favour of the claimants while deducting the amount of interim compensation, if any and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount within a period of one month. MAC. APP. 734/2013 is preferred by the Appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. for setting aside the impugned Award dated 15.05.2013 whereas MAC. APP. 1117/2013 is preferred by the Claimants for enhancement of compensation amount in terms of the impugned Award dated 15.05.2013.

2. Both these appeals arise out of the impugned Award dated 15.05.2013 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal which arise out of the same incident. Hence both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The learned Claims Tribunal vide the impugned Award dated 15.05.2013 held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants at the first instance with recovery rights against the Respondent No.7 (Driver) and Respondent No.8 (Owner). The relief granted by the learned Claims Tribunal is as under:

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY

4. Mr. Arihant Jain learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Impugned Award is perverse and has been passed without appreciating the principles of law, documents on record and the evidence on record. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal while granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company failed to appreciate the fact that there was no valid permit with the offending vehicle on the date of the alleged incident and the Appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to complete exoneration. In order to substantiate his argument on this aspect, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Chella Bharathamma & Ors., reported as 2004 ACJ 2094. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in relying on the sole testimony of PW-3 (eye witness) who was a planted witness, as neither his statement was recorded by the police nor was his name shown as an eye witness in the FIR. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in ascertaining the income of the deceased and ignored the fact that the deceased was employed on probation basis. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not deducting the Income Tax for the gross annual income of the deceased for grant of compensation under the head `Loss of Dependency'. Learned counsel further contended that in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, compensation under the head `Care and Guidance for Minor Children' (Love and Affection) has to be deducted. Lastly, learned counsel argued that it has emerged from the testimony of PW-1, Smt. Rani (wife of the deceased) that her parents in law were residing with her Dewar and as such the learned Claims Tribunal erred in observing that the parents of the deceased were dependent on him.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANTS

5. Mr. Anshuman Bal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation contended that the deceased was 35 years and 2 months of age at the time of alleged incident and as such the learned Claims Tribunal err