The appellant-Insurance Company can raise all grounds of defense without being restricted to the grounds available under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. I Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also Mr. L R Das, assisted by Miss M Chakraborty, learned counsels appearing for the respondents-claimant.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21/12/2011 passed in MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007 wherein and where-under, the learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation of L 8,00,000/- lakhs which is to be paid by the appellant-company i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Shillong-1. This appeal is taking up along with the cross-objection.

3. This Court passed an Order dated 21/3/2013 allowing the respondent-claimant to raise by way of cross-objection the claim in respect of payment of interest on the award as well as the claim to make enhanced compensation on the basis of documents which are said to have been proved in accordance with Law in the appeal preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company.

4. The fact sufficient for deciding the present appeal as well as cross-objection is briefly noted. The respondent-claimant i.e. Shri Gaybreanath Khongwir was an employee of Khongwir Service Station, Khanapara as a driver of the Tata Indigo bearing registration No. ML-05-D-5531. It is also an admitted case of both the parties that the said Tata Indigo is insured with the present appellant i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Shillong-1. While the claimant respondent was driving the said vehicle i.e. Tata Indigo bearing registration No. ML-05-D-5531 met an accident at 9th miles Khanapara on 29/3/2006, and as a result of the said accident, the claimant-respondent was unconscious and taken to International Hospital Guwahati for treatment. One Dr. S.P. Bhattacharjee who was serving as a specialist at International Hospital, Guwahati, treated the respondent-claimant Shri Gaybreanath Khongwir. As the condition of the respondent-claimant who suffered from multiple facial bone fracture was very serious, he was advised to be treated at the very advanced Hospital and accordingly as per the advice of Dr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, who had treated the claimant-respondent, respondent-claimant along with 3 relatives and Dr. S.P. Bhattacharjee went to the Apollo Hospital, Chennai for further treatment. For the treatment at the Apollo Hospital, Chennai the claimant-respondent had incurred huge expenditure. The claimant-respondent also had produced the vouchers and bills for the expenditures incurred during his treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai and those were Ext. 1, Ext. 2 and Ext. 5 to Ext. 48. The total amount claimed in the claim petition i.e. MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007 filed by the respondent-claimant was only L.8,02,194/- (Rupees eight lakhs two thousand one hundred ninety four) only.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed the written statement in the MAC. CASE. NO. 23 of 2007 before the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shillong. In the written statement filed by the appellant respondent, there is no pleading that as 2 (two) other vehicles i.e. truck and bus were also involved in the accident wherein the claimant-respondent was the victim, the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant-respondent because of the said motor accident on 29/3/2006 should not be borne by the appellant-Insurance Company. However, in the Para No. 3 of the written statement, the appellant-Insurance company pleaded that the claim case is not maintainable in the present form, and the claimant could have approached the Commissioner for grant of compensation. The claim case is also bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties such as the owner, driver and insurer of those vehicles and the particulars of those vehicles are not disclosed by the claimant in his claim petition.

6. The appellant-Insurance Company also did not obtain the leave under section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act for taking defences on all grounds over and above the Limited defence provided in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Regarding t