The importance of proving claims with acceptable evidence and adhering to the principles of natural justice and evidence enshrined under the Evidence Act.

J.C.S. Rawat, J.

1. Since these Appeals are arising out of the same accident which occurred on 2908-2004, as such, the appeals are being decided by the common judgment.

2. These appeals, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the award dated 30-05-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge / IInd F.T.C.; Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. Nos. 62/2004 (AO. No. 393 of 2005) and 61/2004 (A.O. No. 395 of 2005) whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in M.A.C.P. No. 62 of 2004 (A.O. No. 393 of 2005) and Rs. 17,500/- in M.A.C.P. No. 61 of 2004 (A.O. No. 395 of 2005) respectively as compensation against the respondent No.2- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim 'petitions.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants- Kashmir Singh and Sri Mohan Singh had filed a claim petition Nos. 62/2004 (AO. No. 393 of 2005) and 61/2004 (AO. No. 395 of 2005) respectively before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- each alleging therein that on 29-08-2004 when they were travelling in Tata Sumo bearing No. DL 4CE 1488 from Rudrapur Court, an offending Tanker bearing No. HR 46/3055, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the Tata Sumo near Panchakki. The claimants sustained serious injuries on account of accident. It was further alleged that they had made an expenditure of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each towards their medical treatment. Hence, the claim petitions had been preferred by the appellant-injured before the Tribunal.

4. The opposite parties filed their' separate written statements and contested the case. The owner of the tanker- Santosh Singh / respondent NO.1 had alleged in his written statement that the accident did not occur by the offending tanker. It was further alleged that the offending tanker was having a valid permit and registration at the time of accident and it was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company / respondent No.2 and thus the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

5. The opposite party No. 2- Oriental Insurance Company alleged in its written statement that the claimants had not impleaded the owner and the insurer of Tata Sumo. The accident occurred due to the negligence of Tata Sumo in which the injured were travelling. The owner and insurer of Tata Sumo are liable to pay the compensation, if any. It was further alleged that the driver of the Tata Sumo was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It was further alleged that the offending tanker was being plied against the conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the claim petitions filed by the claimants are liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers of the vehicle, i.e., Tata Sumo and Tanker and the liability was distributed 50:50 % on both the vehicles. The learned Tribunal further held that the claimants had filed the medical bills of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Rudrapur and Sai Hospital, Moradabad but these bills had not been proved in accordance with the law, as such the compensation cannot be awarded without proper proof of the bills. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that the evidence of the claimants did not disclose how many injuries were sustained by them in the accident and even the claimants had not filed X-ray plates for the perusal of the Tribunal from which it may be determined that how many fractures were found on the body of the injured. The Tribunal further held that the claimant- Kashmir Singh had filed the temporary disability certificate of 20%. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- in MAC.P. No. 62/2004 (A.O. No. 393 of 2005) and 35,000/- in M.A.C.P. No. 61/2004 (A.O. No. 395 of 2005) for th