JUDGEMENT

1. By this common judgment, two appeals, one filed by the insurer and the other filed by the claimant challenging the award dated 31.05.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu ['for short' the Tribunal'] are proposed to be decided.

2. Before coming to the grounds of appeal, it would be apt to give a brief background of the facts leading to filing of these two appeals. On 01.12.2011 at about 5.15 pm, a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. JK21-3393 that was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver-respondent No. 3, knocked down the claimant, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries.

3. The claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him. In the said claim petition, the insurer, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle were impleaded as party respondents. In the claim petition, the claimant contended that he was earning monthly income of Rs. 15000/- as electrical technician and due to the accident, he has suffered permanent disability resulting in loss of earning. A compensation in the amount of [1][Rs. 17,80,0002] was claimed by the claimant.

4. The claim petition was contested by the appellant-insurance company by filing its objections. In its objections, the insurance company denied the occurrence, but admitted the currency of insurance policy of the offending vehicle with it at the time of the accident. It was also contended by the insurance company that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly exorbitant. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle, however, did not contest the claim petition.

5. From pleading of the parties, the following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:

(i) Whether on 01.12.2011, at about 05.15 pm near Seventeen Miles the petitioner received injuries on his head in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JK21-3393 by respondent No. 3 as a result of which he suffered disablement of permanent nature ? OPP

(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, to what amount and from whom ? OPP

(iii) Relief OP Parties.

6. After recording the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant had suffered injuries due to the accident involving the offending vehicle which was insured with the appellant-insurance company. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal, after taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 8000/- and his loss of earning capacity at 30%, awarded a sum of Rs. 12,48,979/- as compensation in favour of the claimant. The awarded sum was to carry interest at the rate of 7.5%.

7. The appellant-insurance company has challenged the impugned award primarily on the ground that the disability alleged to have been sustained by the claimant has not been proved, inasmuch as, neither the Doctor, who has treated the claimant, nor the Doctor who has examined the claimant at the time of issuance of disability certificate have been produced as witnesses. It has been further contended that the income of the claimant has not been proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence and, having regard to the occupation of the claimant, his income has been taken by the Tribunal on a higher side. It has been contended that the Tribunal, while awarding interest on whole of the compensation amount, has fallen into error because certain components of the compensation relate to future expenditure on which no interest can be awarded.

8. In the cross-appeal, the claimant has contended that income of the claima