JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. Vide this common judgment, this Court, shall dispose of FAO- 1923-2008 filed by the Insurance Company as well as FAO-3500-2008 filed by the appellant/claimant, as the same have arisen out of the common award dated 01.05.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar.

2. The appeal, i.e. FAO-3500-2008, has been preferred by the appellant/claimant against the Award dated 01.05.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.52,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant in Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 13.10.2002.

3. The appeal, i.e. FAO-1923-2008, has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Award dated 01.05.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1/claimant was allowed and the appellant-Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to respondent No.1/claimant to the tune of Rs.52,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.10.2002 at about 1.30 p.m. claimant along with Shri Vijay Bhushan Mehta was coming from the side of Jyoti Chowk to Skylark Chowk, Jalandhar. Scooter No. PB-08-X- 9546 was driven by Shri Vijay Bhushan Mehta, whereas the claimant was sitting on the pillion. When the said scooter reached near Montique Restaurant a Maruti Zen Car bearing No. CH-03-J-0329 driven by respondent no. 1 came from the opposite side with high speed. It was coming on the wrong side and by this it struck into the scooter driven by Vijay Bhushan Mehta and as a result of strong hitting of the right side of the Car with scooter, the claimant and Vijay Bhushan Mehta fell from the scooter. The claimant suffered serious multiple injuries on his head and shoulder.

5. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether Narinder Pal Singh claimant has suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by Subash, Respondent no. 1 by driving car no. CH- 03-J-0329 rashly and negligently on 13.10.2002 in the jurisdiction of Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar? OPP.

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP.

3. Whether Subash, respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR

4. Who are liable to pay the amount of compensation? OP Parties.”

7. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.52,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant and the appellant-Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present appeals.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends:-

(i) that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate and contrary to the evidence on record. It is contended that the appellant/claimant, a practicing advocate, had duly proved his pre-accident income through Income Tax Returns, yet his income has been assessed on the lower side, resulting in an erroneous computation of loss of earning capacity.

(ii) that the appellant/claimant was about 26 years of age at the time of the accident and sustained multiple grievous injuries, including fracture of the right clavicle and severe head and brain injuries, leading to complete bilateral hearing loss, permanent neurological impairment, and persistent tinnitus. The appellant/ claimant continues to u