1. The appellants have filed these appeals under S.173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Fast Track Court and Member, Addl. MACT, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short), in MVC No. 231 of 2014 on 22.12.2014.

2. The appellant in MFA No. 100559 of 2015 has prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award under appeal, whereas the appellant in MFA No. 101249 of 2015 has prayed for enhancement of the compensation by modifying the judgment and award under appeal.

3. The appellant in MFA No. 100559 of 2015, which is the insurance company, was the respondent No. 2 in the Tribunal. The said appellant in the present appeal has contended that the Tribunal has grossly assessing the neurological disability of the claimant to the extent of 80 per cent, in the absence of any disability certificate issued by the neurologist or any evidence tendered before the MACT by the neurologist with regard to the neurological disability. The Tribunal ought to have discarded the evidence of PW 2, who was an orthopaedician. It has further erred in adding 50 per cent of the salary towards future prospects of the injured, which is against the principle of law. Assessing the disability at 80 per cent by Tribunal is also erroneous. Further, stating that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and award under appeal.

4. The appellant in MFA No. 101249 of 2015 was the claimant in the Tribunal. The said appellant in his memorandum of appeal has stated that he was doing food - grains business and earning Rs. 6,500 per month. The award is liable to be enhanced by considering the loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent. Further stating that the compensation awarded under various heads is also meagre, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 33,82,870.

5. On notice being issued, respondent No. 1 in MFA No. 100559 of 2015 and respondent No. 2 in MFA No. 101249 of 2015 are served and appeared through their learned counsels. Notice to the respondent No. 2 in MFA No. 100559 of 2015 and respondent No. 1 in MFA No. 101249 of 2015, who was placed ex parte before Tribunal, was dispensed with. The lower courts records were called for and the same are placed before us.

6. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the entire materials placed before this court.

7. The points that arise for our consideration are:

(i) Whether the appellant has made out grounds to allow MFA No. 100559 of 2015?

(ii) Whether the appellant has made out grounds to allow MFA No. 101249 of 2015?

Since these points are interrelated to each other, in order to avoid repetition of analysis of facts, both the points are taken up together for analysis.

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with the rankings they were holding in the Tribunal.

8. MFA No. 101249 of 2015 is a claimant's appeal, who has prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MFA No. 100559 of 2015 is an appeal by the respondent No. 2, insurer. However, the said insurer nowhere in his appeal has disputed the finding of the Tribunal about the occurrence of the accident as alleged in the claim petition, claimant's sustaining injuries in the accident and also the Tribunal affixing the liability to pay compensation upon the respondents jointly and severally and further directing the respondent No. 2, insurer to pay the awarded amount by depositing it in the Tribunal. As such, the point of occurrence of accident as alleged by the claimant and the responsibility of the respondents to pay the compensation, is not in dispute. The only point in contest is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the point of occurrence of accident and the liability of the respondents to compensate the claimant need not be appreciated again.

9. The Tribunal in its imp