JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - These are two appeals filed against the judgment dated 5th November 1977, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bareilly. First Appeal From Order No. 83 of 1978 has been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, Bareilly, against the award of compensation in favour of the claimant while First Appeal From Order No. 91 of 1978 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in both the appeals. 3. On 8th December, 1974, an accident took place between a Mini Bus No. UPO 2131 belonging to Mohammad Iftikhar Ahmad and Mohammad Israr Ahmad against a scooter belonging to one Satya Prakash. The case set up by the claimant was that the claimant was going on a scooter along with one Bal Kishan Agrawal from Bareilly to Ramganga. A mini bus was coming from the side of Ramganga. An accident took place and, consequently, Satya Prakash, the claimant, sustained a fracture in his leg and remained under treatment in the Mission Hospital, Bareilly for a long period. In consequence of this accident, the claimant has suffered a permanent physical disability. This disability has been caused due to the accident. 4. Satya Prakash, the claimant, made a claim for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. 5. A joint written statement was filed by Mohammad Iftikhar Ahmad and Mohammad' Israr Ahmad denying the fact that any accident took place. It was further stated that no loss was suffered by the claimant and that the mini bus was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. The National Insurance Company Limited also filed a written statement taking a similar case. 6. The Tribunal framed five Issues. 7. The Tribunal found that, in fact, the accident took place between the scooter of Satya Prakash and Mini Bus No. UPO 2133 on 8th December, 1974 at 10.30 A.M. It further found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Mini Bus No. UPO 2133 and that the claimant was not at all guilty of any negligence. The Tribunal further, after examining the evidence on the record, granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation against the respondents. 8. Against the award of the Tribunal, the respondents, Mohammad Iftikhar Ahmad and Mohammad Israr Ahmad did not file any appeal. The Tribunal further, after examining the evidence on the record, granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation against the respondents. 8. Against the award of the Tribunal, the respondents, Mohammad Iftikhar Ahmad and Mohammad Israr Ahmad did not file any appeal. However, appeals have been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited as well as by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 9. Learned Counsel for the claimant has raised a preliminary objection in the appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited to the effect that it is not open to the Insurance Company to challenge the findings recorded by the Tribunal on merits The argument is that the Insurance Company can only challenge the award on the grounds, specifically mentioned in Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 10. In reply, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has placed before me the provisions of Section 110-C (2A) of the Act, which provides as under: 110-C (2A). Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied the-- (i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (ii) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. 11. From the above clause, it is clear that where there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or the person against whom the claim is made, has failed to contest the claim, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, the Tribunal has the power to direct the Insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and, thereafter, the said insurer shall have a right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. 12. 12. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the original record has been burnt. Consequently, it is not possible to find out whether there was any specific order passed by the Claims Tribunal as to whether there was a collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom claim was made or the person against whom the claim has been made has failed to contest the claim. In the absence of the record, in the interest of justice, I think it necessary not to debar the Insurance Company from challenging the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence, which has been produced by the parties. In this view of the matter, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has placed before me the oral evidence adduced in the case to challenge the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal. 13. At this point, it may be stated that it is not disputed that no evidence at all was produced by Mohammad Iftikhar Ahmad and Mohammad Israr Ahmad in regard to either the question of accident or to any other question. Similarly, the Insurance Company too has not produced any evidence to support their case taken in the written statement. The only evidence to be considered is the evidence which has been produced by the claimant himself. 14. I have examined the evidence of Satya Prakash (P.W.I). He has categorically stated that on 8th December, 1974 at 10.30 A.M., he was going towards the Ramganga side from Bareilly and that his friend Bal Kishan Agrawal was sitting on the pillion of the scooter. It has been further stated that he saw a mini bus No. UPO 2133 coming from the opposite side and that there was a turn at the place of the accident. When the mini bus came towards that turn, it came towards the right side and, consequently an accident took place with the scooter, which was going towards the left side. 15. There is practically no cross examination on this question. The statement has gone unrebutted. Similarly, Bal Kishan (P.W. 2) has also stated, in effect, the same circumstances leading to the circumstances, as has been stated by Satya Prakash (P.W. 1). Bal Kishan Agrawal (P.W. 2) has also not been cross examined. 15. There is practically no cross examination on this question. The statement has gone unrebutted. Similarly, Bal Kishan (P.W. 2) has also stated, in effect, the same circumstances leading to the circumstances, as has been stated by Satya Prakash (P.W. 1). Bal Kishan Agrawal (P.W. 2) has also not been cross examined. B.D. Sharma (P.W 4), who was the Sub Inspector Baradari, Bareilly has categorically stated that when he went to the spot and asked the persons, who were the eye witnesses to the said accident, they stated that the accident had taken place because of the fault of the mini bus. 16. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has, however, placed reliance upon the sentence used in this examination, which reads as under: SCOOTER MINI BUS KI DRIVER KI SEAR SE DAHINE TARAF the AUR JJDHAR KO US JA RAHI THI US TARAF KE LEFT SIDE PER THA. In my opinion, this statement also supports the case set up by the claimant. It has been clearly stated by Sri B.D. Sharma (P.W.4) that the scooter was on the right side of the seat of the driver and on the left side of the road which went from Bareilly to Ramganga. 17. From the evidence on the record, therefore, it is clearly established that the scooter was going from the left side. The mini bus came from the opposite side and from the left side and, consequently, the accident took place. It is, therefore, clear that it was the mini bus driver who was negligent and the accident took place because of the negligence of the mini bus driver. The Tribunal has, consequently, in my opinion, given cogent reasons that it was because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini bus that the accident took place. In my opinion, no interference is called for with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, so far as the appeal of the National Insurance Company Limited is concerned, I do not find any merit in the same and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the other appeal filed by the claimant, the only argument raised by the appellant is that the court below has not granted any compensation for future loss of business. 18. In the other appeal filed by the claimant, the only argument raised by the appellant is that the court below has not granted any compensation for future loss of business. His argument is that in view of the disability, he has to engage an employee on a salary of Rs. 200/- per month to look after the business and, as such, he is entitled to fifteen years' compensation in this regard. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the statement made by him before the Tribunal. Particular reference has been made to the statement made by Satya Prakash (P.W. 1). In para 9, it has only been stated that recently he has kept a boy to look after the shop and that he has to pay on an average a sum of Rs. 200/- per month. This statement was made on 29th April, 1977. The appellant was discharged from the hospital on 24th February, 1975. He did not engage any person from 24th February 1975 till the date of his statement. It is, therefore, clear that the disability caused by the accident does not hamper in any manner the business done by him. He has further admitted in his statement that his work is only of a supervisory character. In his statement, he has also not said as to for how long be has to maintain the services of the boy engaged to look after the shop. In the circumstances, I do not find justification to grant claim to the appellant in respect of the alleged future loss of business. The argument made by the learned Counsel, in my opinion, is not substantiated on the basis of the evidence on the record. In the circumstances, 1 do not find any force in this appeal of the claimant and it is also liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in both the appeals.