The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to substantiate claims and defenses, the inapplicability of a 1/3 deduction in cases of 100% disability, and the need for proper compliance with procedural rules and framing of issues in civil proceedings.

JUDGEMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

These two Appeal from Orders, preferred by the Insurance Company, are by invoking the provisions contained under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as an “Act”), whereby they are putting a challenge to the judgement and award, as it has been rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP Case No. 308 of 2012, Mahesh Kanyal Vs. Bhure Khan and others, whereby, by the impugned award of 30th September, 2014, as well as the judgment and award dated 30.09.2014, as rendered in MACT Case No. 313 of 2012, Nanda Kanyal Vs. Bhure Khan and others, awarding an amount of Rs.1,38,229/- with an interest @ 7.5% payable w.e.f. 22.08.2012, i.e. date of presentation of the Claim Petition. The learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), had proceeded to award an amount of Rs.66,89,757/- and Rs.1,38,229/- respectively to the claimants, which has been subjected to challenge to the present Appeal from Order.

2. Before venturing to answer the questions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, while putting a challenge to the impugned award, some basic facts and features are required to be dealt with by this Court, while adjudicating upon these Appeal from Orders, on its own merits.

3. Brief fact are that in an accident, which had chanced on 31st December, 2011, at about 5:30 p.m., near village Bastia, the applicant to the Claim Petition, who was travelling in a Santro Car, bearing registration No. UA06G- 5188, is said to have met with an accident with a Canter truck, bearing registration No. UA 04E 3581. At the time, when the accidence chanced, the appellant, along with his family members and other inmates of the Car; were travelling from Shyamalatal to Khatima, and as a consequence of the accident, which has chanced on 31st December, 2011, he had suffered grievous injuries.

4. At the time of the accident, the applicant of the Claim Petition has submitted, that at the relevant point of time, he was of 45 years of age and was an Advocate by profession, and according to the plea of income, which was accruing to him, he claims that he was earning an amount of about Rs.20,000/- per month approximately. Apart from the injuries which were suffered by the claimants, the other two co-passengers too, who travelling in the Car, were also seriously injured and they also have suffered injuries, which were medically attended, by the doctors, who were providing the medical assistance, to the injured persons of the accident.

5. As a consequence of an accident, an FIR No. 2 of 2012, was also got registered at Police Station Tanakpur, for commission of the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 427 of the IPC, by the offending vehicle, i.e. Canter, which is said to have dashed against the Car of the present applicant, which was an independent proceedings taken separately, which would not have any bearing on the present Appeal from Orders.

6. It was contended by the claimants in the Claim Petition, that owing to the nature of injuries, he would be entitled for payment of the compensation, to the tune of Rs.50 lakh, which was claimed by him, as on the date of the institution of the Claim Petition on 13th August, 2012, but, however, later on, the said quantification of the claim was got raised by the claimants, respondents, herein, the same was later on amended by the Court’s order of 29th August, 2014, by enhancing the compensation claimed from Rs.50 lakh to Rs.75 lakh.

7. At this juncture itself, this Court feels it apt to observe, the issue about the probable enhancement of the claim of the compensation which was permitted to be carried by way of an amendment on 29th August, 2014, which is also one of the limb of arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, which will be answered in the subsequent stage of this judgment, the only aspect, which is attem