The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for direct evidence and proper proof of documents to support a compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the Evidence Act.

J.C.S.Rawat, J.

This appeal, preferred u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred as Act of 1988) is directed against the award dated 19-01-2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/1st F.T.C., Roorkee, in MAC. Case No. 56 of 2004, whereby the claim of the claimant was allowed for an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,65,800/- and the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay the same.

2. The claimant had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 15,70,000/- before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 18-12-2003 he was going to his shop at Ajad Nagar Chowk by his Scooter bearing No. UP 1O C-2055. When he reached near his shop at about 5:30 p.m., an Ambassador Car bearing No. UP 1O C-8711 , being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed his scooter resulting multiple injuries on the-person of the claimant-ShahjadAhmad. The claimant-Shahjad Ahmad was firstly given medical treatment in Parash Nursing Home, Roorkee and thereafter he remained admitted in the Hospital of Mukesh Jain, Muzaffarnagar. from 21-12-2003 to 26-12-2003. It was also alleged in the claim petition that the claimant had also undergone medical treatment in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and had incurred a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards his medical treatment. It was further alleged that the claimant-Shahjad Ahmad was 30 years of age at the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs. 80,000/- per annum from medical store and STD/PCO.

3. The Insurance Company contested the claim petition. The Insurance Company in its written statement denied the averment made in the claim petition for want of knowledge.

However, it was pleaded that the Ambassador Car bearing No. UP1 OC-8711 was insured with it at the time of accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter; the driver of the Ambassador Car was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident; and the car was being plied against the terms of the insurance policy.

4. The respondent No.2 Shri Prithvi Singh Viksit, owner of the Ambassador Car pleaded in his written statement that the driver of the Ambassador Car was driving carefully; he was holding valid licence at the time of accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant; the claimant had claimed exorbitant and excessive compensation; and the Ambassador Car was insured with the Insurance Company• as such, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation, if any.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues and ultimately, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant sustained the injuries in the accident on 18-12-2003 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Ambassador Car; and the insurer of the car was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 36,000/- with the multiplier of '15', the compensation was worked out to Rs. 5,54,000/-. The Tribunal had further awarded a sum of Rs. 1,11,810/- towards Medical Expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 6,65,810/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant for his injuries in the motor accident.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company / appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

8. Heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation taking into account the disability certificate produced by the claimant; the said certificate was not proved in the evidence as contemplated under law; the learned Tribunal has selected the higher multiplier while calculating the compensation; the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that the claimant before the accident was doing the business of wholesal