The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to uphold the findings of the lower tribunal and grant enhanced compensation based on the evidence presented.

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. The appellant – United India Insurance Company Ltd. In FAO-6143-2013 has filed the present appeal for setting aside the impugned award dated 10.09.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, whereas, the appellant/claimant – Mahesh Kumar in FAO-6318-2013 has filed the present appeal for modification and enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as referred above. Both these appeals have arisen out of the same award dated 10.09.2013, therefore, the appeals are taken up together for disposal.

2. The facts of the case are that Mahesh Kumar filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs. 15 lacs alongwith interest on account of injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicular accident. It is submitted that at the time of accident, he was 45 years old and was doing private job and was in the business of trading as part time job and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. On the fateful day of 31.10.2011, at about 02:30 P.M. he was going on his motorcycle bearing No. HR-24-N-9860 on Dabwali road and when he reached near Model Senior Secondary School, Grain Market, Sirsa, a Tractor bearing No. HR-42-3075 alongwith Trolley was going ahead of him. The claimant/petitioner blew horn to take side and was in the process of crossing the Tractor Trolley, when the respondent No. 1 suddenly turned the Tractor towards the right hand side and hit the Tractor into his motorcycle. As a result, the motorcycle fell down and the tyre of trolley ran over his legs. The claimant/petitioner suffered serious injuries in this accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. Vinod Kumar – brother of the claimant/petitioner was also coming behind him. He took him to Civil Hospital Sirsa by arranging a vehicle. He was shifted to Jindal Hospital, Hisar. Regarding this accident, FIR No. 846 dated 05.11.2011 was registered under Section 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of offending Tractor Trolley i.e. respondent No. 1. He was medically examined at General Hospital, Sirsa and thereafter, he took treatment from Jindal Hospital, Hisar from 31.10.2011 to 11.11.2011. He had suffered fractures and he was operated upon. He also took treatment from Apex Hospital, Sirsa from 14.11.2011 to 15.11.2011. He had spent Rs. 3 lacs on his treatment and he further required Rs. 2 lacs for future treatment. The said Tractor Trolley was owned by respondent No. 2 and it was insured by United India Insurance Company Limited – respondent No. 3. The claimant/petitioner also suffered permanent disability. Now, he is unable to do his job. He suffered pain and agony. He has claimed compensation of Rs. 15 lacs alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of accident till realization from the respondents.

3. The claim petition was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. Raj Kumar – Driver and Mahender Kumar – owner of the Tractor Trolley bearing No. HR 42-3075. They took preliminary objections and denied all the facts stated by the claimant/petitioner. It was alleged that claimant may be put to strict proof of the facts stated in the claim petition. A false FIR No. 846 dated 05.11.2011 has been registered against respondent No. 1 at the instance of claimant/petitioner and his relatives. They also connived with the police to lodge this false FIR in order to grab compensation. In fact, no accident took place with the Tractor Trolley in question. The claim of the claimant/petitioner regarding compensation is also denied. In case, the answering respondents are held responsible to pay the compensation then respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company be directed to indemnify the answering respondents.

4. The Insurance Company – respondent No. 3 also filed separate written reply taking the stand that claim petition is not maintainable in the present form. It is alleged th