S. Talapatra, J.

1. All these appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants are tied up together for the reason that the claims related to those appeals are from the same accident and in addition thereto those claims have been disposed of by the common judgment and award dated 17.08.2006 as passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 67 of 2008, MAC Case No. 68 of 2003 and MAC Case No. 69 of 2003. The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident that occurred on 16.06.2002 when the Maruti Car bearing registration No. As-04-A-8604 which the appellants were travelling-by was dashed by the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-J-0045(Bus) having been driven in a rash and negligent manner, the serious injuries as sustained by the appellants on their persons, damage caused to the Maruti Car and the insurance cover of the offending bus by the respondent No. 2 are not in dispute by either of the parties and in the appeal. As such, those findings stand affirmed by this Court and further appraisal thereof is avoided.

2. The questions as projected in this appeals are common and related to the insufficiency of the compensation vis-a-vis the injuries and disability as received by the appellants from the said accident.

3. Mr. J. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and award has been passed in denying the principle as laid down in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. To illustrate further, Mr. J. Singh, learned senior counsel has stated that the medical expenses as supported by the proper records has not been included in the compensation and also the rate of disability has been relegated to while determining the compensation.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned senior counsel along with Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 strongly supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has taken all necessary factors into consideration and excluded those which would exalt in the unjust gain. He by way of further explanation submitted that the records relating to the medical expenses were not submitted in original so far the appellant in MAC Case No. 67 of 2008 is concerned. The said appellant was a Superintendent Engineer under the ONGC Ltd. and non-submission would unhesitatingly point to submission of the originals for reimbursement from the ONGC Ltd. As per the Medical Attendance Rules the said appellant is entitled to reimburse the medical bills from the ONGC Ltd. The Tribunal has not accepted the copies of the vouchers to grant medical expenses in absence of the originals. Apart that, nowhere in the claim petition it has been submitted that for the accident the said appellant has become jobless or that his earning has suffered adversely. What he deposed in the Tribunal is that he lost one promotion. But such claim is as well not supported by any document or convincing evidence. The appellant however, narrated the inconvenience from the disability that he suffered from the accident and to eliminate such inconvenience to some extent, he has to incur the additional expenditure periodically. The other appellants however did not receive such injuries which has caused any sort of disability. At least no medical records has been produced thereof. For purpose of appreciating the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties it would be proper to scrutinize the LCRs.

5. MAC Appeal No. 64 of 2008:

It is pertinent to note that MACT Case No. 67 of 2003 was filed by the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 64 of 2008 for compensation againsts damage that his Maruti vehicle suffered in the accident. The Tribunal in consideration of the provisions as laid down in Section 147(ii) and without any attempt to ascertain the damage as there was no report either by a surveyor or by a workshop mechanic provided it compensation of Rs